PDA

View Full Version : So how was the off season anyway?



dfs
03-22-2007, 12:07 PM
The reds may well be involved in another deal or two before opening day. There was a bit of caterwauling about what a bad off season the reds were having.

Understanding that it's spring and...well, everything looks better in the spring? How do you feel about the off season now?

They way I saw it, Krivsky needed to...

Find a shortstop. Not three guys who can do part of the job, but one guy.
He's pretty much done that. You can argue with his choice, but the reds have a guy who deserves a full time shortstop gig far more than Clayton, Aurlia or Castro.

Get the elephant out of centerfield. It has become increasingly apparent that Junior isn't really a centerfielder anymore. He's done that. Between Freel, Denorfia, Hamilton, Hopper and Crosby, there are any number of true centerfielders in camp. Even Junior has to see that the team is better with Junior in right and one of those guys in center.

sign a righthanded platoon bat. Either Aurlia or somebody like that. We got Jeff Conine. This is a tough one. You want a decent player here, but you don't want somebody good enough that Junior can say..."Hey...why doesn't this guy start in right and I'll be in center." but you want somebody good enough that you don't mind sitting Hatteberg for him against lefties. Conine fits that profile about as well as anybody.

Lock up the two big starters. I never dreamed the reds would actually do this, but they have their two best starting pitchers locked up for the foreseeable future. That's ...That's huge.

The reds shed Rey Olmedo, Willioam Bergolla, Brandon Claussen Brendan Harris David Shafer, Michalik and Jason Standridge and picked up Saarloos, Livingston, Keppinger and Gill.

In a move worthy of Jim Bowden, Krivsky snuck two rule v picks into the system who both might be capable of making the roster and lasting out the season. Even if Josh Hamilton is only lefty pinch hitting power off the bench that can run and play outfield D, he's worth the money and most likely the roster spot.

The reds paid a lot of money to shed themselves of Jason LaRue. They then replaced him with Chad Moeller who is bad enough that they may not even carry three catchers this year. Crazy like a fox. If Moeller will actually go to AAA, that's a coup.

Feeling he had four starters, he didn't overspend in the free agent market. He's giving Belisle a clear shot at a starting job and has guys in place if Belisle fails (Saarloos, Santos). Here again, you can argue with the perception that he has four starters, but given that he felt that way, he's upgraded the tail of the rotation from what we are used to seeing.

He rebuilt his bullpen without dramatically overpaying for a closer. From where I sit, I think he's brought in too many high priced vets with too many innings on their arms, but there are going to be a ton of guys at AAA that he can call up once Narron slags the vets. Many of the vets (Guardado, Hermanson, Wilson, Santos, Lightenberg, Meadows) are essntially no-cost signings.

Given that they guy has been on the job for a year, I think the way he has turned over the roster has been superb. Without breaks, the reds are not contenders yet, but they are much closer to a baseball team than they were 14 months ago. The reds may have a "rebound" year where they only win 78 games or so and that could be percieved as a failure, but considering where Dan O'brien left them, that would be extraordinary.

Plug Votto in at first and Baily into the rotation, and darn good things could happen in 08.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 02:42 PM
I guess I must respectfully disagree. You talk about things looking good in 08.

Who has Wayne added this offseason that is likely to help in 2008? Maybe Sarloos and the Rule V guys, that's it.

It's easy to add mediocre vets when you have 30+ million to spend. I'm talking about Gonzales, Stanton, Cormier, Conine and other guys Wayne added that frankly most teams do not want.

Wayne had the money to add a high upside starter like Penny. He certainly had the money to pick up a better bat than Conine. He could've also upgraded 1b and kept Hattenberg as a bench player. He had a lot of options with all the cash he had.

After spending 30 million this offseason, I'm not sure this 07 team is better than the team that started the 06 season. We are going to feel the loss of Kearns, Lopez, and Aurillia this year. I'm not saying the Reds had to keep them, but some attempt should've been made at replacing their bats. Conine just isn't going to cut it. If Freel doesn't snap out of the slump he had last year, this offense is really going to sputter.

The bullpen is still going to cause a lot of headaches.

The big upside is having Sarloos (or Belise) in the #5 slot in the rotation instead of the Lizard, Michelak and that other dreck we saw last year. That's the only step forward I see.

cacollinsmba
03-22-2007, 03:10 PM
Wayne had the money to add a high upside starter like Penny. He certainly had the money to pick up a better bat than Conine. He could've also upgraded 1b and kept Hattenberg as a bench player. He had a lot of options with all the cash he had.

I'm not sure why you're using Penny as an example. He wasn't a free agent. For us to acquire him would require Dunn rather than cash. That wasn't feasible.

I don't think the reds committing to another Milton, i.e. $10 mil + annually to someone of the Meche or Lilly variety does not make any sense.

I would agree with you if the Reds had turned down the opportunity to sign Zito, or possibly even Maddux for a decent deal or Rocket for half a season.

If you are an impact pitcher, why would you consider the Reds this season? The Reds had to overpay to get Milton. How much will they have to over pay for a pitcher that doesn't suck? I think we were lucky to keep Harang and Arroyo in the fold. I'm not sure many other starters want to follow their lead.

I'm also not sure who you'd pick to upgrade 1B over Hatteberg. Frankly, I don't think upgrading 1B is one of our glaring problems. Hatteberg isn't an ideal 1B and isn't exactly young, but I'm not sure who you acquire to put there. Besides, how much should this team trade away to get a 1B when Votto could be given a shot in a year or so.

Kc61
03-22-2007, 03:15 PM
I agree with the dfs point of view. A baseball team needs stars and depth. I don't think Krivsky added stars this off-season, although Hamilton could be one. He did add a lot of depth. He has also kept the minor league system intact. So he gets pretty high marks from me.

As he continues to draft guys -- remember all the high draft picks the Reds have in '07 -- promote guys, and pick up ok inexpensive veterans, the team will have the depth to survive the long 162-game season, with all of its injuries, demotions, slumps, etc. Right now, the team's depth looks better than in a number of years.

What Krivsky hasn't done so far is add big impact players. Those cost lots of money these days. I had hoped he would get one for the rotation -- a proven starter for a 1 -3 rotation slot. He didn't. Instead, Kriv went for less expensive options like Saarloos, and spent to retain his big 2.

Over time, if the team is going to be successful, the Reds will have to spend for a couple of key free agents. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

dfs
03-22-2007, 03:32 PM
Who has Wayne added this offseason that is likely to help in 2008? Maybe Sarloos and the Rule V guys, that's it.
Saarloos, ruleV pickups. Livingston from the waiver wire, Jerry Gil, he's got 5 legitimate centerfield candidates AND his "real" shortstop.

Take the core of the current team and say half of those new additions guys "develop" in some marginal way. Then add in Votto and Bailey...and there you go, you've got a baseball team!

Add in ANOTHER decent off season where he correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses that he has and he could then think about adding that impact player that can push his core over the top.

When Dan O'Brien left, this team was far, far from a good team. They are much less further away now. Yes, the offense is worse, but the pitching is much better than what Dan and Jimbo left.

Dracodave
03-22-2007, 03:40 PM
When Dan O'Brien left, this team was far, far from a good team. They are much less further away now. Yes, the offense is worse, but the pitching is much better than what Dan and Jimbo left.

A monkey could pitch better than what Dan'O and Jimbo left...

remdog
03-22-2007, 03:42 PM
Saarloos, ruleV pickups. Livingston from the waiver wire, Jerry Gil, he's got 5 legitimate centerfield candidates AND his "real" shortstop.

Take the core of the current team and say half of those new additions guys "develop" in some marginal way. Then add in Votto and Bailey...and there you go, you've got a baseball team!

Add in ANOTHER decent off season where he correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses that he has and he could then think about adding that impact player that can push his core over the top.


You're obviously on puppy-uppers.

Rem

BRM
03-22-2007, 03:42 PM
You're obviously on puppy-uppers.

Rem

What? You're not sold on Livingston or Gil? ;)

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 03:50 PM
The good: Hamilton and Burton picks. Upgraded defense at SS from hideous to above average/good. Signed AH and BA to reasonable LTC. Brought in some folks to battle out for the #5 spot that while not world beaters, aren't the Mayes level of crap we had last year. Jr moved to RF. I'd say those are some pretty strong moves.

The kinda good: Having Livingston stashed away at AAA might prove usefull later on. LaRue traded and some sallary sent packing.

The bad: Milton and Loshe seemingly penciled into the starting rotation. No solid #3 type brought into the rotation. Weathers and Stanton (not horrible choices, IMO but certinally not the best ones either) in the bullpen.

The ugly: Conine, Moeller, Belhorn, Crosby.

remdog
03-22-2007, 04:03 PM
Redread is the only one above the line that seems to have paid attention this winter---and he wasn't even here! :laugh:

It's been well documented here that Krivsky has spent in the area of $20M in the offseason simply to bring in dregs while he could have actually spent the money on helpful players.

Jeff Conine! Come on! Bubba Cosby! Come on! Stanton, Loshe, Cormier, Moeller! Come on!

The Reds paid Conine $2.1M and the Phils replaced Jeff with a better bat and a better glove for $875K. Krivsky, basically paid KC $3M to take LaRue in order to replace him with a catcher that is decidedly inferior defensively and who I have great worries that will return to his old ways with the stick. He gave a contract extention to both Cormier and Hatteberg---something neither of them should have gotten. Stanton is toast. Weathers soon a good bet to follow. Bottom line is that he could have fielded a better team by replacing those guys with less money and spent the rest of it on a solid #3 starter----something that, in this woefully weak division, might be as close to a lock as things come.

The weak division is one thing that keeps me optomistic about the Reds this year. The other thing that will have to be done is to be willing to cut your losses earliy if you want to stay in the race and take your chances on the kids. If that doesn't work, you're rebuilding anyway.

Rem

pedro
03-22-2007, 04:13 PM
Didn't you get the memo?

Everything sucks and Krivsky/Narron are morons.

If you think otherwise you must either be stupid or on drugs.

Oh, and they're really building a winner in DC!

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 04:16 PM
I'm not sure why you're using Penny as an example. He wasn't a free agent. For us to acquire him would require Dunn rather than cash. That wasn't feasible.

He was a quality pitcher that was available on the the trade market.
The point was that other than Sarloos (good trade), Wayne didn't really use the trade market to fill the team's needs. Maybe LA and the Reds didn't match up, but the point is that there was quality pitching available via trade.

It's easy when you have 30+ million in your pocket to just grab FAs. But Wayne didn't grab any good ones. He signed guys who at best will be average, and that's a stretch. Not a very good risk/reward profile. In addition, he gave them multiyear deals despite the fact that they are old and declining.

I can almost guarantee you that either Stanton or Weathers will be a total disaster in 2008, just due to age. Heck, Stanton is 40. He may crash this year. That's not building for the future. When you sign a guy like Stanton for more than 1 year, you are trying to win for this current year, and willing to accept the risk it will blow up in your face in later years.. Not an appropriate move for the Reds, IMO.










I don't think the reds committing to another Milton, i.e. $10 mil + annually to someone of the Meche or Lilly variety does not make any sense.



This is where I disagree. Lily got an average of 10 million per year. He just turned 31. He's put in very solid seasons three out of the last 4 years.

Look at how the Reds spent 10 million.. 2 million for Cormier, 2 million for Conine, I think about 4.5 million for Lohse, and when you add Castro, I think you are either over 10 million or very close to 10 million.

Which team spent their 10 million more wisely? Wouldn't you trade Cormier, Castro, Conine, and Lohse for Lily? Also, Lilly will only be 35 in his last year. That's a much better risk than Stanton being 41 or 42.









If you are an impact pitcher, why would you consider the Reds this season?



Exactly the same way the Cubs and Royals convinced people. You sell the team. Even the Pirates are occasionally able to talk a mid level FA to coming to their team.







The Reds had to overpay to get Milton. How much will they have to over pay for a pitcher that doesn't suck?



But they did overpay for pitchers that are going to suck.. Stanton and Cormier. Maybe Lohse.





I'm also not sure who you'd pick to upgrade 1B over Hatteberg. Frankly, I don't think upgrading 1B is one of our glaring problems. Hatteberg isn't an ideal 1B and isn't exactly young, but I'm not sure who you acquire to put there. Besides, how much should this team trade away to get a 1B when Votto could be given a shot in a year or so.

We can't expect Hattenberg to repeat his last season's performance, especially since he doesn't have Aurillia to platoon with this year. Why is 1b a concern? Because right now we have a stop gop guy there with very little power who is declining. Why not look at the spots on this team that have old/declining guys and try to upgrade with young guys who will hopefully improve?

pedro
03-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Ok, now that I have that off my chest I'd like to say that I think the moves made by the Reds this off season were reasonable for a team that appears to be trying to build towards 2008 and which had too many missing pieces to be truly competitive this year. While I may not agree with everything Krivsky has done this off season (Jeff Conine springs to mind) I think I can see a method to his supposed madness.

remdog
03-22-2007, 04:24 PM
Didn't you get the memo?

The crayon was smeared together and it was tought to read.

Rem

remdog
03-22-2007, 04:25 PM
I think I can see a method to his supposed madness.

It usually helps if you're mad.

Rem

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Here's the pick up Krivsky should have made - then again, maybe he strikes out too much.

http://www.supermancollectors.com/scn/2004mar/supball7.jpg

westofyou
03-22-2007, 04:30 PM
Brad Penny?

Penny’s almost collapsed the past few seasons with varying shoulder problems, and last topped 200 IP in 2001, his career splits show that he degrads as the season progresses and has an ERA under 4.00 in only 2 months for his career, April and May.

For the cost Penny would have been a mess.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 04:30 PM
Saarloos, ruleV pickups. Livingston from the waiver wire, Jerry Gil, he's got 5 legitimate centerfield candidates AND his "real" shortstop.

I agree on sarloos and the rule V guys. The other guys, not really.
Deno and Hopper were already in the system, they weren't added.
I don't see 5 legitimate CF candidates. I am crossing my fingers that Freel can put together a solid season. If Hopper, Hamilton, or Deno end up starting, I think we are in trouble. Hamilton has upside, but if he makes it, it's going to take several years of on the job training, just like Wily Mo.





Add in ANOTHER decent off season where he correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses that he has and he could then think about adding that impact player that can push his core over the top.

When Dan O'Brien left, this team was far, far from a good team. They are much less further away now. Yes, the offense is worse, but the pitching is much better than what Dan and Jimbo left.

Well, the Reds won 80 games last year. During Dan0's reign of terror they won 73 and 76 games, so that is an improvement. Bowden's teams won more in the Marge era, but had tough times in the Allen/Lindner era after 2000 due to penny pinching.

WayneK has a decent owner now and money to spend. If he doesn't get this team over .500 this year, would you consider that a failure? I think that is a reasonable goal, but I'm not sure if they will make it or not.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 04:34 PM
The kinda good: Having Livingston stashed away at AAA might prove usefull later on. LaRue traded and some sallary sent packing.
.


Paying that much money to unload LaRue was a horrible move. The way the market was going, a good GM should've been able to unload Larue without subsidizing his contract.

If there were no takers for Larue, you keep him and don't get Conine. IIRC, LaRue was making around 5 million and we paid KC over 3 million.. thus the net amount saved was about what Conine cost.

Like I said earlier. You sit LaRue down and tell him he's got a fair shot to win his job back this year, and then give him a chance. I thought it was dumb to bench Larue as much as they did last year, but they could recover from that.
Worst case, Larue pouts all year, but still probably is a better bat off the bench than Conine.

bucksfan2
03-22-2007, 04:35 PM
Redread is the only one above the line that seems to have paid attention this winter---and he wasn't even here! :laugh:

It's been well documented here that Krivsky has spent in the area of $20M in the offseason simply to bring in dregs while he could have actually spent the money on helpful players.

Jeff Conine! Come on! Bubba Cosby! Come on! Stanton, Loshe, Cormier, Moeller! Come on!

The Reds paid Conine $2.1M and the Phils replaced Jeff with a better bat and a better glove for $875K. Krivsky, basically paid KC $3M to take LaRue in order to replace him with a catcher that is decidedly inferior defensively and who I have great worries that will return to his old ways with the stick. He gave a contract extention to both Cormier and Hatteberg---something neither of them should have gotten. Stanton is toast. Weathers soon a good bet to follow. Bottom line is that he could have fielded a better team by replacing those guys with less money and spent the rest of it on a solid #3 starter----something that, in this woefully weak division, might be as close to a lock as things come.

The weak division is one thing that keeps me optomistic about the Reds this year. The other thing that will have to be done is to be willing to cut your losses earliy if you want to stay in the race and take your chances on the kids. If that doesn't work, you're rebuilding anyway.

Rem

While I agree with some of what you said, I dont with others. First of all when Krivsky traded for Cormier they had to give him an extention in order to get the deal done. I dont mind the Hatty extention, either as a 1b or bat off the bench, he can help this team. Lohse I am not down on as much as others are. The guy has stuff he just needs to get his arm and head on the same page. As for LaRue, its a miracle Krivsky got anyone to take him off our hands. In my opinion he may be the worst player in all of baseball.

I agree with you that he did little to make this a better club in the offseason. I dont think they significantly improved this club. Gonzo is an improvement over Clayton but I would rather have had Phillips at short and Lopez at 2nd (but I dont want to rehash the trade debate). I would rather have hot air than Conine on this team, and what makes it worse is that they traded for him. Moeller and Crosby were minor acquisitions if you ask me and I dont think too much pain would be felt if they were released or sent to AAA. Stanton really does nothing for me. The guy is not a closer and better not be used in that mold. Hermanson has a chance to close but I wonder how effective he can be. I also dont want the reds to lose an arm such as Burton because they had to keep a veteran on the roster.

For positives of this offseason I think Krivsky did well in not offering a bad contract. You may have overpaid for Gonzo but its not nearly as bad as the contracts that were given out to LaRue, Casey, Milton, etc. that the past organization had given out. Hamilton looks like he may be the real deal and should help this club out. Even if he is a defensive substitution for some of this season he sure is better than what they have had. I like the Saarloos acquisition, for some reason Oakland pitchers know how to pitch and Saarloos comes from that organizatoin. There also seems to be some sort of plan for the future. You can see with the legnth of contracts and also the prospects that are making their way through the reds organization they are gearing up.

I think Krivsky has put together a team that can contend in the NL central this year. They have two players in the minors, Baily and Votto, who have the potential to come up to the bigs and give the team a shot in the arm. I am hopeful that this will be a fun season to be a reds fan.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 04:40 PM
Brad Penny?

Penny’s almost collapsed the past few seasons with varying shoulder problems, and last topped 200 IP in 2001, his career splits show that he degrads as the season progresses and has an ERA under 4.00 in only 2 months for his career, April and May.

For the cost Penny would have been a mess.

Was just an example to show that starters better than Lohse and Milton were available. If you don't like him, fine. The point is there was better things to spend money on than what Wayne ended up buying. Often it's better to trade for a good player instead of signing a bad FA.

He pitched 175 IP in 2005 (3.90 ERA) and 189 IP ( 4.33 ERA) in 2006.
I'll take that. I'm not saying I'd pay any price, but I'd welcome him with open arms.

westofyou
03-22-2007, 04:40 PM
The way the market was going, a good GM should've been able to unload Larue without subsidizing his contract.

What exactly is the market rate for a 33 year old catcher coming off a year that he hit .194 and slugged .346?

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2007, 04:42 PM
I love how Hamilton and Burton are already being counted as huge successes when they've helped the Reds win exactly zero major league games.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 04:43 PM
Ok, now that I have that off my chest I'd like to say that I think the moves made by the Reds this off season were reasonable for a team that appears to be trying to build towards 2008.

Yeah, Stanton, Weathers, and Gonzo are really going to pay dividends in 2008 :rolleyes:

The only good moves Wayne made this winter were Sarloos and the rule V guys. The other moves reminds me of a guy that was in his first roto league auction. He got guys with recongnizable names that were past their prime or never that good to begin with. And he paid a premium for them.

westofyou
03-22-2007, 04:43 PM
I'm not saying I'd pay any price, but I'd welcome him with open arms.

Well yeah, but he would have cost a good body and he has a fragility that could send him away with 25 million due to him through 2009. Depends on what type of gambling you like to do.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 04:44 PM
Like I said earlier. You sit LaRue down and tell him he's got a fair shot to win his job back this year, and then give him a chance. I thought it was dumb to bench Larue as much as they did last year, but they could recover from that. Worst case, Larue pouts all year, but still probably is a better bat off the bench than Conine.


AVG OBP SLG VORP - PECOTA Projections for 2007
233 .313 .367 -0.5 - LaRue
268 .334 .401 1.4 - Conine

I can't believe I'm defending Jeff "Young Body" Conine, but in comparion to LaRue, and saving $3m, I'd put my money on Jeff if they were the only two options.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 04:46 PM
I love how Hamilton and Burton are already being counted as huge successes when they've helped the Reds win exactly zero major league games.

I'd say just having the chance to see what they can do, and having seemingly viable POTENTIAL good players is a step up from what we've had to choose from in years past.

We've heard nothing but griping and complaining about bringing in young, inexpensive tallent. Well, Krivsky delivered on those two, creative, player moves didn't he? I'd call that a sucess.

What happens in the real season remains to be seen, but that holds true for all the players, not just those two guys.

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 04:49 PM
Hamilton has upside, but if he makes it, it's going to take several years of on the job training, just like Wily Mo.

They're not comparable at all. Pena was essentially stuck on the Reds roster from when he was 20 years old (maybe 21). While Hamilton has been off from active play, he's four years older. Certainly he will probably level off, but I don't see him as being similar to Pena given his age. Certainly, folks can disagree with that, but that's what I think.

BRM
03-22-2007, 04:51 PM
I can't believe I'm defending Jeff "Young Body" Conine, but in comparion to LaRue, and saving $3m, I'd put my money on Jeff if they were the only two options.

I know what you are saying but there really isn't any savings. The Reds paid $3M to unload Larue then spent $2M on Conine. The money is essentially a wash.

Handofdeath
03-22-2007, 05:00 PM
He was a quality pitcher that was available on the the trade market.
The point was that other than Sarloos (good trade), Wayne didn't really use the trade market to fill the team's needs. Maybe LA and the Reds didn't match up, but the point is that there was quality pitching available via trade.

It's easy when you have 30+ million in your pocket to just grab FAs. But Wayne didn't grab any good ones. He signed guys who at best will be average, and that's a stretch. Not a very good risk/reward profile. In addition, he gave them multiyear deals despite the fact that they are old and declining.

I can almost guarantee you that either Stanton or Weathers will be a total disaster in 2008, just due to age. Heck, Stanton is 40. He may crash this year. That's not building for the future. When you sign a guy like Stanton for more than 1 year, you are trying to win for this current year, and willing to accept the risk it will blow up in your face in later years.. Not an appropriate move for the Reds, IMO.









This is where I disagree. Lily got an average of 10 million per year. He just turned 31. He's put in very solid seasons three out of the last 4 years.

Look at how the Reds spent 10 million.. 2 million for Cormier, 2 million for Conine, I think about 4.5 million for Lohse, and when you add Castro, I think you are either over 10 million or very close to 10 million.

Which team spent their 10 million more wisely? Wouldn't you trade Cormier, Castro, Conine, and Lohse for Lily? Also, Lilly will only be 35 in his last year. That's a much better risk than Stanton being 41 or 42.









Exactly the same way the Cubs and Royals convinced people. You sell the team. Even the Pirates are occasionally able to talk a mid level FA to coming to their team.







But they did overpay for pitchers that are going to suck.. Stanton and Cormier. Maybe Lohse.





We can't expect Hattenberg to repeat his last season's performance, especially since he doesn't have Aurillia to platoon with this year. Why is 1b a concern? Because right now we have a stop gop guy there with very little power who is declining. Why not look at the spots on this team that have old/declining guys and try to upgrade with young guys who will hopefully improve?


If you think the Reds front office is so incompetent, then let me remind you of this. Lilly got his 10 million a year for being a fair pitcher for the last 4 seasons. He's never pitched over 200 innings. He's never had an ERA as a starter under 4.06. He's barely a .500 pitcher at his best. The Reds extended the contract of Arroyo for a couple million more a season than Lilly's contract and got a pitcher who was

ERA-4th
IP-1st
K's-6th
Won 14 games
2006 All-Star

But that's not all for less than what Lilly got they resigned Harang. Harang, if you remember, was

Wins-1st
IP-3rd
K's-1st
Complete Games-1st

Wayne Krivsky knows what he's doing. He just locked up his two best players for the next several years and did it at fair market value. He did what a smart GM does.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:01 PM
Well yeah, but he would have cost a good body and he has a fragility that could send him away with 25 million due to him through 2009. Depends on what type of gambling you like to do.


IMO, it's gambling to count on Weathers, Castro, Cormier, Maj, Stanton, Gonzales, Lohse, Freel, Ross, and Milton.

Yet that that's what Wayne chose to do.

Give me the ace pitcher that is an injury risk over guys that probably just aren't going to cut it due to age or lack of talent.

Are you saying you wouldn't have taken Randy Johnson at any point in his career because he was an injury risk (back and other assorted injuries, IIRC)?

What about Eric Davis? He was a constant injury risk. Where you glad when he was traded?

Any player acquision is a risk. Penny has been able to put in a decent workload the last two seasons (that's as far back as I checked). In hindsight, wasn't it kind of foolish for the Reds not to pick him up in 2003 for Hudson and Howington? People defended that non-move because of injury risk as well.

Kc61
03-22-2007, 05:02 PM
Paying that much money to unload LaRue was a horrible move.

If there were no takers for Larue, you keep him and don't get Conine. IIRC, LaRue was making around 5 million and we paid KC over 3 million.. thus the net amount saved was about what Conine cost.

Worst case, Larue pouts all year, but still probably is a better bat off the bench than Conine.

Lifetime stats:

BA -- Conine .286. Larue .239.
OBP -- Conine .348. Larue .325.
OPS -- Conine .793. Larue .740.
K/BB -- Conine less than 2 to 1; Larue more than 3 to 1.

Larue is "still probably a better bat off the bench than Conine?" Don't think so.

And putting stats aside, having watched Larue for many years, I'd take him any day to throw out a baserunner trying to steal. But as a righty offensive player off the bench? No.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:06 PM
Lifetime stats:
.

Conine is too old to use lifetime stats. He was a very good player when he was young.

What he did last year is a much better predictor of what he's likely to do this year.

Is it possible that Conine might outhit LaRue this year? Yes, it is.
But LaRue gives you a backup plan in case Ross collapses. LaRue could also play 1b. LaRue could probably play LF as good as Conine.

LaRue has the potential to be a trading chip if some team needs a catcher in July. I can guarantee there will be zero interest in Conine this July.

westofyou
03-22-2007, 05:28 PM
Are you saying you wouldn't have taken Randy Johnson at any point in his career because he was an injury risk (back and other assorted injuries, IIRC)?14 years of over 200 IP, he's a beast and a HOF pitcher, Penny is not in his league.


What about Eric Davis? He was a constant injury risk. Where you glad when he was traded?
Position players are different animals now aren't they?


In hindsight, wasn't it kind of foolish for the Reds not to pick him up in 2003 for Hudson and Howington?

That sounds like a pretend deal to me.

But yes it's too bad they didn't get him for that.

pedro
03-22-2007, 05:32 PM
Yeah, Stanton, Weathers, and Gonzo are really going to pay dividends in 2008 :rolleyes:

The only good moves Wayne made this winter were Sarloos and the rule V guys. The other moves reminds me of a guy that was in his first roto league auction. He got guys with recongnizable names that were past their prime or never that good to begin with. And he paid a premium for them.

Roll your eyes all you want Redread. It's a process. One I honestly wouldn't expect that you'd have the first clue about.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:42 PM
What exactly is the market rate for a 33 year old catcher coming off a year that he hit .194 and slugged .346?

Better than Conine. That's basically what the Reds did. KC is paying LaRue about 2 million, that's about what Conine is making.

Of course, LaRue had decent value before the 2006 season started. Wayne and Narron ruined his trade value by benching him and not giving him a chance to keep his job.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 05:44 PM
Of course, LaRue had decent value before the 2006 season started. Wayne and Narron ruined his trade value by benching him and not giving him a chance to keep his job.

Yea, damn then for riding Ross's hot bat. What a bunch of idiots.

They should have stuck with the old crafty vet that wasn't producing over the younger player who was putting up good numbers.That seems consistant with your other views regarding younger versus older players doesn't it?

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:44 PM
Well yeah, but he would have cost a good body and he has a fragility that could send him away with 25 million due to him through 2009. Depends on what type of gambling you like to do.

Well Wayne is gambling over 30 million on stiffs like Stanton, Lohse, Cormier, etc. Stiffs that he chose to add to the team.

I'd rather gamble 25 million on an ace pitcher.

And yes, I'd rather trade for a good player than get a crappy one through free agency. If Penny would've cost too much in a trade, find another decent player, even if the decent player is overpaid.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:46 PM
AVG OBP SLG VORP - PECOTA Projections for 2007
233 .313 .367 -0.5 - LaRue
268 .334 .401 1.4 - Conine

I can't believe I'm defending Jeff "Young Body" Conine, but in comparion to LaRue, and saving $3m, I'd put my money on Jeff if they were the only two options.

We're not saving any money on Larue, remember we sent KC some money and we added Conine's salary. That almost breaks even.

LaRue is hard to project for this year. I will give you that. But I think you have to attribute some of his poor performance to having his job yanked away. Employees generally don't perform well when the boss screws them over. (That's how Larue saw it).

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:49 PM
They're not comparable at all. Pena was essentially stuck on the Reds roster from when he was 20 years old (maybe 21). While Hamilton has been off from active play, he's four years older. Certainly he will probably level off, but I don't see him as being similar to Pena given his age. Certainly, folks can disagree with that, but that's what I think.

Hamiton isn't going to be able to step in and hit ML pitching consistently.

Wily Mo was more advanced than Hamilton when Wily Mo arrived. Wily had a solid AA season under his belt. Hamilton is making the jump from A ball (?) and has several years away from baseball.

The point is that the Reds are going to have to develop Hamilton at the ML level, just as they did with Wily. It's going to take time.
Although maybe they can option Hamilton back to the minors next year, I don't know about that.

westofyou
03-22-2007, 05:49 PM
Better than Conine. That's basically what the Reds did. KC is paying LaRue about 2 million, that's about what Conine is making.

Of course, LaRue had decent value before the 2006 season started. Wayne and Narron ruined his trade value by benching him and not giving him a chance to keep his job.

Actually I wasn't talking money, I was talking talent, like in what the hell could they have gotten for him.

As for who ruined his trade value, on June 1st Larue had 76 at bats and a line of .184/.292/.329. Ross had only 50 at bats and a line of .300/.368/.620.

A month later Ross was at .308/.384/.654, the only person who took LaRue's job away from him was David Ross.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:52 PM
Wayne Krivsky knows what he's doing. He just locked up his two best players for the next several years and did it at fair market value. He did what a smart GM does.

I will agree with you that extending Harang and Arroyo were good moves. I didn't include those in my discussion since it was primarily extending existing players. I include Lohse because the Reds did have the option to nontender him.

As far as Lily goes, it's a fact of life that it's more expensive to sign a free agent than it is to extend a guy like Harang who still a few years away from FA. That's the way the market works.

I still say that the Reds would've been better served to sign Lilly, even if it took 12 million/year as opposed to signing the dreck they did sign (FAs, not Harang/Arroyo).

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:55 PM
14 years of over 200 IP, he's a beast and a HOF pitcher, Penny is not in his league.
.

I didn't say Penny = Johnson. The point was that Johnson was a constant injury risk as well.

You keep harping on 200 IP.. Penny had 187 last year. If he pitched 13 more innings, would that have changed your mind? I mean, that's close enough.

There were several versions of the Penny/Hudson/Howigton deal floated around and the Reds killed the deal. The official reason was due to Penny's health. My guess is that the real reason was that Allen didn't want Penny's 3-4 million salary. If you've forgotten about that, go back and research the offseason before 2003.

Kc61
03-22-2007, 05:56 PM
We're not saving any money on Larue, remember we sent KC some money and we added Conine's salary. That almost breaks even.

LaRue is hard to project for this year. I will give you that. But I think you have to attribute some of his poor performance to having his job yanked away. Employees generally don't perform well when the boss screws them over. (That's how Larue saw it).

I watched Larue swing and miss at away breaking pitches for umpteen years. He is exactly the kind of hitter that the Krivsky regime doesn't want -- a strikeout hitter who doesn't make up for it in his non-strikeout at bats.

Larue always played hard and threw well but he doesn't hit well and seemed, at least in press reports, not to handle his reduced role very well. He was given years and years of opportunities by this organization. It was perfectly reasonable for Krivsky to move him, even if the Reds had to eat some contract.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:57 PM
Roll your eyes all you want Redread. It's a process. One I honestly wouldn't expect that you'd have the first clue about.

Then enlighten me how Stanton, Gonzo and Weathers is a logical part of a rebuilding process. To me, they seem like expensive, ineffective bandaids.

Enlighten me. :laugh:

I give Wayne credit for his good deals, and criticism for his stinkers.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 05:58 PM
Actually I wasn't talking money, I was talking talent, like in what the hell could they have gotten for him.


Wayne proved he could get nothing for Larue, so why pay someone else 3 million to take him?

Larue had a bad year last year. It will be interesting to see how he does this year. Then we can revisit Conine vs Larue.

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 05:59 PM
I didn't say Penny = Johnson. The point was that Johnson was a constant injury risk as well.

You keep harping on 200 IP.. Penny had 187 last year. If he pitched 13 more innings, would that have changed your mind? I mean, that's close enough.

There were several versions of the Penny/Hudson/Howigton deal floated around and the Reds killed the deal. The official reason was due to Penny's health. My guess is that the real reason was that Allen didn't want Penny's 3-4 million salary. If you've forgotten about that, go back and research the offseason before 2003.

But as for this off-season, you say we could have had Penny, but you have yet to say what price you would have paid, nor whether the Dodgers would have taken that. Invariably Redszone trades tend to want to give up a paltry for a gem. You can't take another team's player without giving something up. It's really a non-issue in whether this offseason was a success or failure because no one outside of the Reds inner circle knows whether something genuinely feasible was every a possibility.

pedro
03-22-2007, 06:05 PM
Then enlighten me how Stanton, Gonzo and Weathers is a logical part of a rebuilding process. To me, they seem like expensive, ineffective bandaids.

Enlighten me. :laugh:

I give Wayne credit for his good deals, and criticism for his stinkers.

I'm not going to waste my time.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 06:07 PM
I'm not going to waste my time.

In other words, it's indefensible. If you had a solid argument, you'd throw it at me without hesitation.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 06:13 PM
But as for this off-season, you say we could have had Penny, but you have yet to say what price you would have paid, [\quote]

The point of bringing up Penny was to say that maybe Wayne should've checked out the trade market instead of blowing all his money on crappy free agents. As fans, we aren't privy to every player available. I have no idea what LA wanted for Penny. I have no idea what other players were available. It was an example. Just like Lilly was an example of better FA spending than the Reds. That's not necessarily proof that if the Reds offered him 12 million/year that we would've landed him.

I agree that we couldn't have gotten Penny for Deno. I agree that many trade proposals here are unrealistic. It really doesn't matter what I'd be willing to give up for Penny because people could always counter with "That's too much" or "LA would want more"..





[quote]. It's really a non-issue in whether this offseason was a success or failure because no one outside of the Reds inner circle knows whether something genuinely feasible was every a possibility.

This offseason was a failure, because outside of maybe Sarloos and the Rule V guys, the talent base was not increased short term or long term, despite spending 30 million. Wayne had enough cash to make some moves (unlike previous Cincy GMs). He didn't make it happen. Now if we end up contending, I will admit I was wrong, but I feel we will struggle to make .500 again. I think this team's upside is 84 wins, and that's extremely optimistic.

That's a failed offseason.

pedro
03-22-2007, 06:13 PM
In other words, it's indefensible. If you had a solid argument, you'd throw it at me without hesitation.


They needed to upgrade the defense at SS. They did so without paying a ton of money.

Weathers was actually pretty good last year so I don't see an issue with resigning
him.

Stanton give the Reds depth and while he surely isn't my favorite guy, he does have some value and they aren't paying him much either.

I don't expect either Stanton or Weathers to be on the Reds in 2008, or at least not key components.

Laugh all you want but defense and depth are important.

Now I'm really done wasting my time with you.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 06:18 PM
They needed to upgrade the defense at SS. They did so without paying a ton of money.

Weathers was actually pretty good last year so I don't see an issue with resigning
him.

Stanton give the Reds depth and while he surely isn't my favorite guy, he does have some value and they aren't paying him much either.

I don't expect either Stanton or Weathers to be on the Reds in 2008, or at least not key components.

Laugh all you want but defense and depth are important.

Now I'm really done wasting my time with you.

Stanton and Weathers are signed through 2008, there's a good chance they'll still be here. Either they will perform and Wayne will want to keep them, or they'll stink and be unmovable.

jojo
03-22-2007, 06:25 PM
The only good moves Wayne made this winter were Sarloos and the rule V guys.

So other than dumpster diving, he got an F? Saarloos is basically competition to be the designated backend fodder and Hamilton and Burton are hopes and dreams... that's the sum of the Reds offseason positives?

yikes....

:barf:

jojo
03-22-2007, 06:28 PM
We've heard nothing but griping and complaining about bringing in young, inexpensive tallent. Well, Krivsky delivered on those two, creative, player moves didn't he? I'd call that a sucess.

A success is not a success until its not a failure....

jojo
03-22-2007, 06:32 PM
Well Wayne is gambling over 30 million on stiffs like Stanton, Lohse, Cormier, etc.

If by $30 million you're speaking in hyperbole, I admire your literary bravado... if you're being literal.... I need to see your complete list of turds...

;)

pedro
03-22-2007, 06:36 PM
A success is not a success until its not a failure....

And it surely isn't a failure because a bunch of impatient whiners on an internet chat board say it is. (and I'm not speaking directly to you on this point Jojo)

As far as I'm concerned there was no path that was going to bring the Reds to 90+ wins this year. They just aren't ready to make that leap. The best thing they could hope for IMO is to take advantage of a weak NL to create the impression of progress while not overburdening themselves with bad long term contracts as they try and position themselves for 2008 and beyond. They Reds locked up their two best pitchers, didn't take on any bad long term contracts, created some depth in their bullpen to protect against the inevitable wash outs/injuries and perhaps give them something to trade during the season and picked up a couple of low risk rule 5 guys who may be able to contribute, all while not trading any of their key prospects.

Sounds like an OK plan to me.

OnBaseMachine
03-22-2007, 06:36 PM
Hamiton isn't going to be able to step in and hit ML pitching consistently.


Since you can look into the future, please share your talents with me. What are next weeks powerball numbers?

Handofdeath
03-22-2007, 06:38 PM
I will agree with you that extending Harang and Arroyo were good moves. I didn't include those in my discussion since it was primarily extending existing players. I include Lohse because the Reds did have the option to nontender him.

As far as Lily goes, it's a fact of life that it's more expensive to sign a free agent than it is to extend a guy like Harang who still a few years away from FA. That's the way the market works.

I still say that the Reds would've been better served to sign Lilly, even if it took 12 million/year as opposed to signing the dreck they did sign (FAs, not Harang/Arroyo).

One of those players you call dreck should have won the AL Gold Glove at SS last season. He will win it in the NL this season, count on it. I hear from you and others about the relievers and how they're no good but when I look at the numbers, I don't see it. I think the problem that you and a lot of others have with the FA signings is about numbers. By that I mean age. As I pointed out on another thread, this isn't 1928. Players can play and play well into their 40's. I'm not talking Clemens or Ryan. I'm talking role players like Jesse Orosco or Julio Franco. The Reds are not building the franchise around these FA signings, they are plugging holes. Aside from Bubba Crosby there isn't a signing that hasn't made some sense. Maybe the Reds have a few too many relievers but there are quite a few teams that are dying for it. Look at the Red Sox. Now comes the trade deadline and the Sox are still in it but their bullpen is extremely iffy. They need a setup guy. Who has relievers to spare? The Reds do. The Red Sox are wanting Weathers and the Reds need OF help because Freel and Jr. are hurt again. Welcome back Wily Mo! I'm using this purely as an example but I hope you get the point. They are role players that have been signed but role players can make very good bait for trades no matter how old they are.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:03 PM
So other than dumpster diving, he got an F? Saarloos is basically competition to be the designated backend fodder and Hamilton and Burton are hopes and dreams... that's the sum of the Reds offseason positives?

yikes....

:barf:

Hey man, I'm trying to be optimistic and look on the bright side :laugh:

I do agree with your accessment that the Rule V guys are more like lottery tickets. Still, I like the moves. Hamilton and Burton are definitely in our top 10 prospects (if you consider them prospects).

The main value of Sarloos is that hopefully he prevents us from going on the Lizard/Michalek/Kim roller coaster again. That was downright depressing. I'm not saying Sarloos is an ace pitcher, but at his salary and trade cost, it was a solid move.

Do you disagree? I don't see much value in the marginal vets he picked up and chose to retain. I don't think it's going to translate much in the W-L record.

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 07:04 PM
Redread wrote:
Redsmetz wrote: But as for this off-season, you say we could have have had Penny, but you have yet to say what price you would have paid,

The point of bringing up Penny was to say that maybe Wayne should've checked out the trade market instead of blowing all his money on crappy free agents. As fans, we aren't privy to every player available. I have no idea what LA wanted for Penny. I have no idea what other players were available. It was an example. Just like Lilly was an example of better FA spending than the Reds. That's not necessarily proof that if the Reds offered him 12 million/year that we would've landed him.

I agree that we couldn't have gotten Penny for Deno. I agree that many trade proposals here are unrealistic. It really doesn't matter what I'd be willing to give up for Penny because people could always counter with "That's too much" or "LA would want more"..


It's really a non-issue in whether this offseason was a success or failure because no one outside of the Reds inner circle knows whether something genuinely feasible was every a possibility.

This offseason was a failure, because outside of maybe Sarloos and the Rule V guys, the talent base was not increased short term or long term, despite spending 30 million. Wayne had enough cash to make some moves (unlike previous Cincy GMs). He didn't make it happen. Now if we end up contending, I will admit I was wrong, but I feel we will struggle to make .500 again. I think this team's upside is 84 wins, and that's extremely optimistic.

That's a failed offseason.

But again, regardless of whether it's Penny or any other player who belonged to another team. We have no idea what trade talks were pursued (or are being pursued) and to suggest we should have done such and such is an exercise in futility, frankly.

There are many of us here who have said all off-season that we thought that WK was looking to put a nominally competitive on the field this year without sacrificing our future. I think he's done that and done it in spades. Yes, some of its unproven (Hamilton & Burton), some of its downtrodden (Conine, perhaps, although I think he could thrive in our park; some of the oldsters in the pen) and some fit the bill (Gonzo).

And I think you cannot discount the in house moves they made that solidified this team and work towards this offseason not being a failure (signing Hatte to an extension, that is one year with the club's option for another - keeps the seat warm for Votto) and signing Arroyo & Harrang to LTC's).

I don't know if it was you that mentioned Lohse, but it would have been foolish to have non-tendered him when he was still in his arbitration years. If nothing else, he can have trade value sometime this year.

For this

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:06 PM
Since you can look into the future, please share your talents with me. What are next weeks powerball numbers?


Come on man.. I know you're better than that.

The guy has been out of baseball for 4 years. He was at A ball last year. He's having good luck hitting fastballs in spring training. When the real games start, he's going to be overmatched. Nothing against Josh, but ML baseball is a very difficult game.

I think the Wily Mo analogy is still a good one. Josh is not ready for ML baseball now. He might be a solid contributor in 2-3 years. If you expect even average ML performance out of him this year, you will be disappointed.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:07 PM
I still say that the Reds would've been better served to sign Lilly, even if it took 12 million/year as opposed to signing the dreck they did sign (FAs, not Harang/Arroyo).

For the record, I would rather have Lohse than Lilly, and that's not even considering the money. When the money is factored in, it's not even close.

The two are fairly comparable pitchers in terms of talent and success rate, but based on the last few years I'm giving the edge to Lohse. Plus Lilly is a pitcher horribly designed for GABP as he gives up a huge amount of HRs, and that problem would only escalate because of his tendencies. Lohse isn't fabulous in that department, but he's been decent enough the last few seasons.

Lilly is hugely overrated. He has some nice K numbers, but besides that, I don't really like him. He's not a very good gamble at 12M IMO. With Lohse at 4.2M this season, that would be 8M flushed down the toilet.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:19 PM
If by $30 million you're speaking in hyperbole, I admire your literary bravado... if you're being literal.... I need to see your complete list of turds...

;)

first of all, stanton's deal was worse than I thought:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701

Stanton gets salaries of $2 million next year and $3 million in 2008. There's an option for 2009 at $2.5 million, with a buyout of $500,000. If he appears in 140 games over the next two seasons, the option-year salary vests at $2.75 million.

Alex Gonzales 14 million
Lohse 4.2 million
Stanton 5.5 - 7.75 (if option vests)
Weathers 5 million
Conine 2 million (estimated)
Cormier 2 million (estimated)
Castro 2.2 /2 years (estimated)

If Stanton's option doesn't vest, that's about 35 million right there.

That was 35 million in payflex that Wayne had the flexiblity to allocate any way he wanted to. That's enough money to get an impact player or two.

I'm not saying he should've not signed any of these guys, however he had the cash available to really upgrade the team.

Falls City Beer
03-22-2007, 07:21 PM
The Harang and Arroyo contracts saved this offseason from being an out and out disaster.

jojo
03-22-2007, 07:25 PM
And it surely isn't a failure because a bunch of impatient whiners on an internet chat board say it is. (and I'm not speaking directly to you on this point Jojo)

I was just being a little Rumsfieldian in order to point out that the chickens can't be counted yet...

I have no issues with picking up Hamilton and I agree with the assertion that it's a creative move....

It's just not a low risk one depending upon how playing much time the Reds are planning to give him.... Narron naming Freel as the likely starting CF'er probably indicates that the Reds are being more realistic about Hamilton than some fans are....

I personally think that if 83 wins took the division last season (check that-translated into winning the World Series), 83 would at least be good enough for meaningful games in September, 2007 (and I can see a way the Reds could win 83 games (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54549&highlight=jojo+2007+reds))... so really managing risk is going to be pretty important this season IMHO.... Every game is crucial.

BTW, I don't mind being called a name, if the name fits anyway.... :beerme:

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:25 PM
first of all, stanton's deal was worse than I thought:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701


Alex Gonzales 14 million
Lohse 4.2 million
Stanton 5.5 - 7.75 (if option vests)
Weathers 5 million
Conine 2 million (estimated)
Cormier 2 million (estimated)
Castro 2.2 /2 years (estimated)

If Stanton's option doesn't vest, that's about 35 million right there.

That was 35 million in payflex that Wayne had the flexiblity to allocate any way he wanted to. That's enough money to get an impact player or two.

I'm not saying he should've not signed any of these guys, however he had the cash available to really upgrade the team.

That's 35M spread over 2-3 years. It's not like he spent 30M per season on these players. That's only going to be about 15M per season of room. I guess you could have gotten an overpaid starting pitcher, but that would have required a 5 year commitment and the Reds would be worse off than they are now.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:26 PM
For the record, I would rather have Lohse than Lilly, and that's not even considering the money. When the money is factored in, it's not even close.

The two are fairly comparable pitchers in terms of talent and success rate, but based on the last few years I'm giving the edge to Lohse. Plus Lilly is a pitcher horribly designed for GABP as he gives up a huge amount of HRs, and that problem would only escalate because of his tendencies. Lohse isn't fabulous in that department, but he's been decent enough the last few seasons.

Lilly is hugely overrated. He has some nice K numbers, but besides that, I don't really like him. He's not a very good gamble at 12M IMO. With Lohse at 4.2M this season, that would be 8M flushed down the toilet.

I can respect that opinion, however, Lilly has a career OBP vs of 326, and a career SLG against of 433.. Lohse is 343/453... Every year since 2002 Lily has had a lower OBP vs and SLG vs than Lohse with one exception.. In 2005, Lily allowed a higher slugging.

IMO, Lily has better numbers than Lohse. Maybe in terms of Cost/performance, Lohse is a better deal.

But there are other alternatives, such as signing Lily, keeping Lohse, and dumping Milton.

jojo
03-22-2007, 07:27 PM
first of all, stanton's deal was worse than I thought:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701


Alex Gonzales 14 million
Lohse 4.2 million
Stanton 5.5 - 7.75 (if option vests)
Weathers 5 million
Conine 2 million (estimated)
Cormier 2 million (estimated)
Castro 2.2 /2 years (estimated)

If Stanton's option doesn't vest, that's about 35 million right there.

That was 35 million in payflex that Wayne had the flexiblity to allocate any way he wanted to. That's enough money to get an impact player or two.

I'm not saying he should've not signed any of these guys, however he had the cash available to really upgrade the team.


Right but that's not actually spent money....it's budgeted money over a couple years in many of those cases.... anyone of those guys could get traded....

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 07:27 PM
But you're talking about 30 Million spread over several years. And if the Reds had used that on one or two FA acquisitions, that would have led to some rather gaping holes in this year's club.

I'm not saying every move was topnotch, but overall I'd give them a B, maybe a B+ with effort. And also very big, we didn't sacrifice our future.

We'll see how it plays out.

Falls City Beer
03-22-2007, 07:30 PM
Right but that's not actually spent money....it's budgeted money over a couple years in many of those cases.... anyone of those guys could get traded....

But let's face it, that's about as close to "spent" money as you're going to offer in MLB. Virtually all of those players are awful, and most will be untradeable.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:30 PM
But there are other alternatives, such as signing Lily, keeping Lohse, and dumping Milton.

Unfortunately that's just not a realistic option. Even in this pitching starved market, I can't see anyone willing to eat enough money to create the room needed to have both players on the roster.

Even if we could, I would probably endorse someone other than Lilly. He would be a disaster in GABP IMO.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:30 PM
That's 35M spread over 2-3 years. It's not like he spent 30M per season on these players. That's only going to be about 15M per season of room. I guess you could have gotten an overpaid starting pitcher, but that would have required a 5 year commitment and the Reds would be worse off than they are now.

It ends up being about 20 million this year, I guess if count Sarloos and the other minor moves he made.

So he had 20 million this year, and about 35 million long term flexibility available to him this year. That's still a lot of money spent on mediocrity.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:31 PM
Right but that's not actually spent money....it's budgeted money over a couple years in many of those cases.... anyone of those guys could get traded....

Yes, it's spent money until you unload the player. The Reds are holding the bag until then.

Most people considered Milton's money "spent" the day he was signed.

Do you actually like all these marginal players Wayne signed?

jojo
03-22-2007, 07:34 PM
Do you actually like all these marginal players Wayne signed?

I don't think I said that.....


I can live with Gonzo at $3.5M this season....

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:35 PM
But you're talking about 30 Million spread over several years. And if the Reds had used that on one or two FA acquisitions, that would have led to some rather gaping holes in this year's club.

I'm not saying every move was topnotch, but overall I'd give them a B, maybe a B+ with effort. And also very big, we didn't sacrifice our future.

We'll see how it plays out.

But we still have gaping holes on the club now. We are short two bats, we are short a closer, a solid setup guy, we are also short at least 2 starting pitchers.

Why not use that 30 million to make the future brighter instead of just grabbing stopgaps. DanO and Bowden would've been roasted alive if they signed Stanton to a contact like that. I'm not saying you specifically redsmetz, but many people on the board would be calling DanO or Bowden an idiot if he gave a contract like that to Stanton. If Stanton appears in enough games, it's a 3 year deal.. and the guy is 40 years old.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Unfortunately that's just not a realistic option. Even in this pitching starved market, I can't see anyone willing to eat enough money to create the room needed to have both players on the roster.

Even if we could, I would probably endorse someone other than Lilly. He would be a disaster in GABP IMO.

Ok, if you don't like Lilly that is fine.

But let's say a pitcher you did like was available for 10-12 million/year. Don't you agree that it would've been pretty easy to do without Stanton, Cormier, and some of the other acquisions to find money for that pitcher?

Falls City Beer
03-22-2007, 07:37 PM
But we still have gaping holes on the club now. We are short two bats, we are short a closer, a solid setup guy, we are also short at least 2 starting pitchers.

Why not use that 30 million to make the future brighter instead of just grabbing stopgaps. DanO and Bowden would've been roasted alive if they signed Stanton to a contact like that. I'm not saying you specifically redsmetz, but many people on the board would be calling DanO or Bowden an idiot if he gave a contract like that to Stanton. If Stanton appears in enough games, it's a 3 year deal.. and the guy is 40 years old.

I seriously doubt that third year vests. Stanton will be lucky to be mop-up this season.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:38 PM
It ends up being about 20 million this year, I guess if count Sarloos and the other minor moves he made.

So he had 20 million this year, and about 35 million long term flexibility available to him this year. That's still a lot of money spent on mediocrity.

I don't really disagree with that. There are some moves like the Weathers, Cormier, and Castro signings that I would have preferred didn't happen.

But there were some nice deals too. I think the Gonzalez signing is a very smart move. Pretty low cost, and he filled a huge gaping need. With the Reds poor defense, getting a top fielding SS is the fastest way to counter-act the problem. He's not a great hitter, but he is decent enough that when combined with his defense, he is a useful player.

And I have been pimping the Lohse move for a while now. With the deals that starting picthers have been getting the last couple of years, Lohse will look like one of the best bargains at the end of the season. It wasn't in the offseason, but if the trade didn't happen we would have likely had to fill the whole through free agency.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:39 PM
I don't think I said that.....


I can live with Gonzo at $3.5M this season....


Was just asking for clarification, because I didn't know where you stood.

My gripe about Gonzo is that we are stuck with him for 3 years, and he's a replacement level bat and I don't think he's an impact glove. Sure, he'll look good compared to Clayton, but he's not worth a 3 year commitment.

If it was just a one year deal, I could tolerate it.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:41 PM
Ok, if you don't like Lilly that is fine.

But let's say a pitcher you did like was available for 10-12 million/year. Don't you agree that it would've been pretty easy to do without Stanton, Cormier, and some of the other acquisions to find money for that pitcher?

To be honest, I wasn't really inspired with the pitchers available in the 10-12M range.

I would rather take my chances on cheaper options like Belisle, Saarloos, and Ramirez and spend the money on the marginal guys, Lohse, and or Gonzalez. I think the Reds will benefit more from the depth rather than creating another potential 5 year contract blunder.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:42 PM
I seriously doubt that third year vests. Stanton will be lucky to be mop-up this season.

I think he needs 140 appearances over 2 years for the option to vest.
In 2005-2006, he had 141. (82 last year).

With the unsettled nature of the bullpen, I can see him getting a lot of appearances. Not saying that it's a given the option will vest, but how many times last year did we see Cormier attempt to retire a batter or two?

Luckily, Narron has a bunch of lefties in the pen this year. That may save us from the option vesting. If we only had two lefties in the pen, it would probably guarantee the option vested.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 07:43 PM
My gripe about Gonzo is that we are stuck with him for 3 years, and he's a replacement level bat and I don't think he's an impact glove.

Just curious, but what makes you think that he's not an impact glove? Just about every semi-reliable fielding stat avialbel rates him as a well above average defensive player at a premium position. Plus BoSox fans rave about his fielding abilities.

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 07:44 PM
But we still have gaping holes on the club now. We are short two bats, we are short a closer, a solid setup guy, we are also short at least 2 starting pitchers.

Why not use that 30 million to make the future brighter instead of just grabbing stopgaps. DanO and Bowden would've been roasted alive if they signed Stanton to a contact like that. I'm not saying you specifically redsmetz, but many people on the board would be calling DanO or Bowden an idiot if he gave a contract like that to Stanton. If Stanton appears in enough games, it's a 3 year deal.. and the guy is 40 years old.

Walk me through being "short two bats" particularly in light of what we have coming up next year. That's a serious question. I suspect one is Hatteberg, but I see him as a good filler while we wait for Votto to mature. I'm guessing the other is an outfield slot, although if Griffey's healthy, we've got the corners covered and in center you've got Freel/Hamilton/Deno. I'm not saying this is the '27 Yankees or the '76 Reds, but it's not a bad ballclub for what we need to do this year.

As for closer, yeah a closer would be good, but I don't know that a decent one was on the market at a reasonable rate. I'm not sold on always having one closer - it's been done in the past by several pitchers. It's not our strongest suit, but some pitcher or another may develop.

Stanton, I'm not all that concerned about. There's probably a dozen guys like him out there. It's not the sexiest move, but it's not dog meat either, IMO.

The holes aren't gaping and the club is in a much better place than last years team.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:45 PM
...
But there were some nice deals too. I think the Gonzalez signing is a very smart move. ...

And I have been pimping the Lohse move for a while now. .

I agree that the Reds either needed to resign Lohse or get someone better. By default, they were kind of stuck with bringing him back. I just don't think Lohse is going to be that good. Hopefully I'm wrong.

As I said earlier, the three year commitment to Gonzo bothers me.

But I do agree that of the debatable moves, Gonzo and Lohse are more easily defended. The turds that stink the least. :laugh: (Just kidding and exaggerating).

Falls City Beer
03-22-2007, 07:47 PM
I generally find that the best argument that's made for Lohse (outside of the erroneous "he has good stuff" argument) is that he's young.

I'm generally unmoved by the strength of that argument.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:48 PM
Just curious, but what makes you think that he's not an impact glove? Just about every semi-reliable fielding stat avialbel rates him as a well above average defensive player at a premium position. Plus BoSox fans rave about his fielding abilities.


He's an above average fielder, but I just don't think he'll make that much of a difference. Sure, he's a huge upgrade from Clayton.

On the bright side, he's still relatively young.. around 31 I think, so he shouldn't decline that much while he's here (if at all).

I guess I would've prefered to spend the money on a legit setup man or starting pitcher, and like I said, I don't want to be tied to the guy for 3 years.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 07:51 PM
Walk me through being "short two bats" particularly in light of what we have coming up next year. .

The solid bats we have: Dunn, Jr, EdE.

Everyone else is a question mark, including Freel. A lot of guys sputtered at the end of the year and it killed us.

I would've liked to add either an OF or 1b bat this offseason to help the offense. I think that was realistic. A longer shot would've been to try to find a bat for 2b and slide Phillips over to SS.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 08:00 PM
My gripe about Gonzo is that we are stuck with him for 3 years, and he's a replacement level bat and I don't think he's an impact glove. .



Um, I'd say improving defence at the position that sees the vast majority of plays from horrible to good/above average is an impact isn't it?

Is he an impact player? No. Is Gonzo going to impact the quality of play at SS for the Reds? Definatley.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 08:03 PM
Um, I'd say improving defence at the position that sees the vast majority of plays from horrible to good/above average is an impact isn't it?

Is he an impact player? No. Is Gonzo going to impact the quality of play at SS for the Reds? Definatley.

I'm confused. That was the point of my post.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 08:03 PM
I'm confused. That was the point of my post.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong person. I'm changing my orignial post right now.

reds44
03-22-2007, 08:06 PM
I think the offense is a concern this year. It almost seemed like the front office thought, hey we are the Reds so we are going to hit. It's just not there anymore. Losing Casey, WMP, Keanrs, Lopez, and even (gasp) RA is alot of blows for an offense to take. EE, Dunn, and Junior when healthy are going to hit. I think Phillips is going to have a real solid year, especially after hearing he put 10 pounds on over the off season of muscle. Freel is going to start in CF, so I'm not sure what that's going to do to his bat. Ross and Hamilton have potention, but are question marks. Conine is going to give you a blah year. Maybe GABP will help out Seabass, maybe not. The rest of the offense is crappy. Another bat would have helped out ALOT.

reds44
03-22-2007, 08:08 PM
Um, I'd say improving defence at the position that sees the vast majority of plays from horrible to good/above average is an impact isn't it?

Is he an impact player? No. Is Gonzo going to impact the quality of play at SS for the Reds? Definatley.
The additions of Seabass and having Freel/Hamilton/Denorfia in CF this year and Griffey in right is going to do WONDERS for the defense.

Freel
Phillips
Seabass

is a REALLY good defensive middle infield. Edwin's D is going to be improved over last year also.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 08:08 PM
I generally find that the best argument that's made for Lohse (outside of the erroneous "he has good stuff" argument) is that he's young.

I'm generally unmoved by the strength of that argument.

It's funny. I'm a Lohse supporter, but I agree, his stuff is very overrated. I wasn't all that impressed with his stuff when he came over in the trade, and I was pretty surprised after hearing about him. This is even evident in his K/9 stats. He never had a decent rate until 2006.

The thing that has made him fairly respectable is that his command is actually pretty good, and was very impressive in that regard following the trade. This combined with a decent ability to keep the ball down makes him fairly solid. The thing that should make or break him is the ability to strike out guys. Last year was his best year in that regard, and if it continues to play above 6 per 9 innings, he should be a dependable starter. He does throw pretty hard, so as long as the command continues to be there, his K/9 should be okay.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 08:09 PM
Sorry, I quoted the wrong person. I'm changing my orignial post right now.

That's cool. No worries.

pedro
03-22-2007, 08:10 PM
I think the offense is a concern this year. It almost seemed like the front office thought, hey we are the Reds so we are going to hit. It's just not there anymore. Losing Casey, WMP, Keanrs, Lopez, and even (gasp) RA is alot of blows for an offense to take. EE, Dunn, and Junior when healthy are going to hit. I think Phillips is going to have a real solid year, especially after hearing he put 10 pounds on over the off season of muscle. Freel is going to start in CF, so I'm not sure what that's going to do to his bat. Ross and Hamilton have potention, but are question marks. Conine is going to give you a blah year. Maybe GABP will help out Seabass, maybe not. The rest of the offense is crappy. Another bat would have helped out ALOT.

I would have liked for the Reds to have added another bat but seriously, bemoaning the loss of Casey is a little extreme.

OTOH, I do think RA is going to be missed, which is something I'd never had thought I would be saying.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2007, 08:11 PM
I would have liked for the Reds to have added another bat but seriously, bemoaning the loss of Casey is a little extreme.



That's very true. We actually upgraded to Hatteberg last year. I don't think anyone ever thought he would badly outproduce Casey, but he managed to while making 7M less.

reds44
03-22-2007, 08:12 PM
I would have liked for the Reds to have added another bat but seriously, bemoaning the loss of Casey is a little extreme.

OTOH, I do think RA is going to be missed, which is something I'd never had thought I would be saying.
It wasn't just Casey, I don't think it was some world beater. It's just the cumulative affects of losing so many guys. If you lose just Casey or just Kearns or Lopez, or maybe a couple of them then you can live with it. However, the losses have added up.

Caveman Techie
03-22-2007, 08:15 PM
A failure isn't a failure until it doesn't suceed. ;)

There, thats some of your logic back at you.

Also as for the 25 million dollars on one (non existant) free-agent ace, exactly who would be on the field with him? I mean if the Reds needed X number of guys to fill holes, and they spent all of their money on 1 ace, then who plays the other positions?

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 08:24 PM
My gripe about Gonzo is that we are stuck with him for 3 years, and he's a replacement level bat and I don't think he's an impact glove.



AVG OBP SLG VORP
.258 .309 .426 12.3 - Gonzo 2007 PECOTA Projection
.272 .331 .406 - NL league average batting for SS

I don't remember what the formula for replacement level is (something like -.70 points from league average ? ). But if Gonzo is slightly above the league average for SS at the plate, he's most certinally above replacement level.

You don't like the 3 year deal. I get it. But his glove will definaltey impact the Reds defence positivley, and his bat is not "replacement" level. (His OBP might be, however.)

westofyou
03-22-2007, 08:28 PM
I mean if the Reds needed X number of guys to fill holes, and they spent all of their money on 1 ace, then who plays the other positions?

That is quite a pickle isn't it?

http://www.mtolivepickles.com/News/articles/Three%20Stooges.jpg

pedro
03-22-2007, 08:30 PM
It wasn't just Casey, I don't think it was some world beater. It's just the cumulative affects of losing so many guys. If you lose just Casey or just Kearns or Lopez, or maybe a couple of them then you can live with it. However, the losses have added up.


My point is that losing Casey is a good thing. Other than that I understand what you are saying. OTOH, the defense & pitching should be better this year which should help close the gap. I think the Reds can score more runs this year than last, but their offense will still probably still be be middle of the pack, and it certainly won't be amongst the league leaders, but that's OK we've been down that road and it got us nowhere.

reds44
03-22-2007, 08:32 PM
My point is that losing Casey is a good thing. Other than that I understand what you are saying. OTOH, the defense & pitching should be better this year which should help close the gap. I think the Reds can score more runs this year than last, but their offense will still probably still be be middle of the pack, and it certainly won't be amongst the league leaders, but that's OK we've been down that road and it got us nowhere.
Very true, with the loss of offense came an improvement of defense. It'd be nice to have some guys that do both well though. :evil:

jojo
03-22-2007, 08:50 PM
Just curious, but what makes you think that he's not an impact glove? Just about every semi-reliable fielding stat avialbel rates him as a well above average defensive player at a premium position. Plus BoSox fans rave about his fielding abilities.

At best he's a +10 run glove....that translates into a win..... That means his glove is maybe worth $3M.... However, defense has a shelflife-especially at his age-so you can't assume he'll be as good defensively this year as he may have been last year... That being said, consider their shortstops last year were -18 (Lopez) and -14 (Clayton) defenders, Gonzo could represent as much as a 3 win upgrade over Lopez. So you decide the baseline to determine how much addig Gonzo is worth relative the payroll.

If his value is derived entirely from his defense relative to league average, then he's probably already overpaid in year one of the contract... if you compare him to what the Reds had, Gonzo is a bargain.

jojo
03-22-2007, 08:54 PM
Walk me through being "short two bats" particularly in light of what we have coming up next year. That's a serious question. I suspect one is Hatteberg, but I see him as a good filler while we wait for Votto to mature. I'm guessing the other is an outfield slot, although if Griffey's healthy, we've got the corners covered and in center you've got Freel/Hamilton/Deno.

I actually think that even if healthy, there's a good chance that Griffey will be a below average bat for a corner outfielder...

FYI, an average mlb RF'er did this last season: .277/.345/.458.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 09:12 PM
The Harang and Arroyo contracts saved this offseason from being an out and out disaster.

And the Arroyo contract was highly questionable...which shows how bad the rest of the offseason was for Wayne.

jojo
03-22-2007, 09:13 PM
AVG OBP SLG VORP
.258 .309 .426 12.3 - Gonzo 2007 PECOTA Projection
.272 .331 .406 - NL league average batting for SS

I don't remember what the formula for replacement level is (something like -.70 points from league average ? ). But if Gonzo is slightly above the league average for SS at the plate, he's most certinally above replacement level.

You don't like the 3 year deal. I get it. But his glove will definaltey impact the Reds defence positivley, and his bat is not "replacement" level. (His OBP might be, however.)

replacement level:
DH & 1B: .85 league average;
C: .75 league average;
Everyone else: .80 league average;

Concerning Gonzo projections, Pecota is down on him but the rest of the projections systems really are up beat (James, CHONE, Zips,Marcel). The average of all 5 projection sytems looks like this: .282/.339/.463. I tend to think Pecota is a more realistic projection but for what it's worth...

Dracodave
03-22-2007, 09:21 PM
Gonzo was worth the money for the glovework/patch job til one of our prospects -or we draft a very good short stop prospect- pan out.

Does it matter his bat is lacking? No, I really don't care as long as his defense is stellar and it is.

Fact is though that outside of first base and catcher, I really don't see the lack of "we need replacements" screaming out now. Griffey in RF is wonderful, Deno Freel or Hamilton in center is a nice touch.

Firstbase will be covered with Votto, no need to worry there. I believe he'll be fine when it is all said and done.

Catcher is where I am worried, both defensively and offensively.

That was a MAJOR weakness, and I'm sorry to say Ross, Valentine and Moeller won't be good enough.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 09:27 PM
AVG OBP SLG VORP
.258 .309 .426 12.3 - Gonzo 2007 PECOTA Projection
.272 .331 .406 - NL league average batting for SS

I don't remember what the formula for replacement level is (something like -.70 points from league average ? ). But if Gonzo is slightly above the league average for SS at the plate, he's most certinally above replacement level.

You don't like the 3 year deal. I get it. But his glove will definaltey impact the Reds defence positivley, and his bat is not "replacement" level. (His OBP might be, however.)


I don't know the strict definiton of replacement level either, but he's definitely below average. I would've prefered to go with a younger cheaper guy who could make the plays at SS and save the cash. Or get a 2b and slide Phillips over.

Again, if Gonzo was just one year at 4 million, I wouldn't mind it. But we are now pretty much locked into the guy for the majority of the Dunn/Harang/Arroyo era. I want to be optimistic that the Reds could somehow get a better SS within the next 3 years.

When you look at the big picture of what Wayne has done, it's obvious that he thinks this team is a contender. His moves were designed to win this year (old declining guys for the most part). That's foolish.

Either that, or the game plan is to try to just be a .500 team for the next few years and not worry about building a contender. Kind of like the Lindner/Allen plan.. try to make the team just good enough so that people will show up to watch the game.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 09:32 PM
I mean if the Reds needed X number of guys to fill holes, and they spent all of their money on 1 ace, then who plays the other positions?

But there was no need to sign Stanton. That's a classic example.

Shackleford would be just as good. Cormier was already in tow as the veteran lefty.

There was no real need to get Conine. No real need to resign Castro. Both of those bench slots could've been filled with low cost waiver wire filler and been just as effective (perhaps more).

Add that to Lohse's salary (or dump Milton) and you've got the money for your ace.. Stanton 2.5 Castro 1.1 Conine 2 Lohse 4.2 = 9.8 million. Of course you'd need to subtract 3 minimum salaries as well.

And there's more fat that could've been cut, even if you want to keep Gonzo.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 09:33 PM
My issue with this whole off-season is that this team, with all the 2 and 3 year contracts and millions given to aging relievers and no hit shortstops, is nowhere near where it has to be to seriously contend on its own merit.

After the 2009 season, does anyone think they'll say "Boy, that was $14 million well spent on Gonzalez, he owned the Cards in the NLCS" or after next year say "Man, we couldn't have made it to the WS without Stanton"? If we don't think we're going to be able to say things like these, then what's the point of signing these guys?

Krivsky has been acquiring relievers like a lunatic since last spring and now everyone is in panic mode because he has to deal or release people b/c he has too many people in the bullpen. Boy...I didn't see this one coming. What if he didn't sign Weathers and Stanton. Does anyone think that this team would be materially worse?

What if he took those guys money and put it towards Dotel for a 1 year deal? That would have been light years better. A legitimate arm in the bullpen and a potentially valuable trading chip.

Instead, WK just flooded the roster with wastes of time. I've been calling it for months. He neglected the rest of the roster and acquired tons of medicore relievers. Now Milton and Lohse have back to back debacles and this team is dreadfully short in the rotation. At least we have Stanton to pitch the 4th in Milton's starts.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 09:36 PM
But there was no need to sign Stanton. That's a classic example.

Shackleford would be just as good. Cormier was already in tow as the veteran lefty.

There was no real need to get Conine. No real need to resign Castro. Both of those bench slots could've been filled with low cost waiver wire filler and been just as effective (perhaps more).

Add that to Lohse's salary (or dump Milton) and you've got the money for your ace.. Stanton 2.5 Castro 1.1 Conine 2 Lohse 4.2 = 9.8 million. Of course you'd need to subtract 3 minimum salaries as well.

And there's more fat that could've been cut, even if you want to keep Gonzo.

Absolutely. That is wasted money. But I would have been more inclined to sign a bunch of intl FAs and drafted the best player available in every round this June with that money.

The Reds have a bunch of early picks this year due to RA and Schoeneweis...wait until they cry poverty and draft guys like Schramek. That's when these signings will really hurt.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 09:36 PM
replacement level:
DH & 1B: .85 league average;
C: .75 league average;
Everyone else: .80 league average;

Concerning Gonzo projections, Pecota is down on him but the rest of the projections systems really are up beat (James, CHONE, Zips,Marcel). The average of all 5 projection sytems looks like this: .282/.339/.463. I tend to think Pecota is a more realistic projection but for what it's worth...

Ok, if Gonzo has a career 292 OBP (career best 319), how in the world can they project him to have a 339 OBP? Isn't it generally true that most guys don't have a sudden increase in OBP at that age.

No offense to the projection systems, but that's an example of why I am a bit cynical of them.

Also, if his defense is worth +10 runs, how much is his offense worth? I'm guessing it's negative, but if you could show me the numbers, I'd appreciate it.

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 09:40 PM
What if he took those guys money and put it towards Dotel for a 1 year deal? That would have been light years better. A legitimate arm in the bullpen and a potentially valuable trading chip..

Ok, let's follow this out to it's logical conclusion.

Who plays SS?
What other arms fill out the spots in the bullpen?
Who platoons with Hatte at 1B?

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of Olmedo, Salmon, Belisle. I know, "they couldn't do any worse" Well, actually, yes they could worse, a lot worse. But let's use your decision making criteron for whether to trade for a player. Will anybody say "Thank the lord Olmedo was here and led us to a WS". "That Brad Salmon really made the difference in the bullpen". Doubt it.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 09:40 PM
Absolutely. That is wasted money. But I would have been more inclined to sign a bunch of intl FAs and drafted the best player available in every round this June with that money.
.


That's certainly a valid use of money as well. If the Reds don't invest in the future, they are doomed. It looks like the same old song.

Dotel was a decent idea as well. At least that's a high upside move. Stanton's upside is mediocrity.

REDREAD
03-22-2007, 09:44 PM
Ok, let's follow this out to it's logical conclusion.

Who plays SS?
What other arms fill out the spots in the bullpen?
Who platoons with Hatte at 1B?

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of Olmedo, Salmon, Belisle. I know, "they couldn't do any worse" Well, actually, yes they could worse, a lot worse. But let's use your decision making criteron for whether to trade for a player. Will anybody say "Thank the lord Olmedo was here and led us to a WS". "That Brad Salmon really made the difference in the bullpen". Doubt it.

You use the money to get younger, better players that will help you longterm and short term. If that requires using Shackleford or Burton in the pen, that's fine by me. If that requires not picking up Cormier or Conine, I can live with that.

Let's see.. By rough count, Wayne spent his money on 7 stopgaps. There can be a middle ground, can't there? How about trading for/buying 2 young guys, 3 stop gaps and then using Shackleford and a 400k PH off the waiver wire.It's not as if Conine is going to make that much of a difference.

Just signing Gonzo alone didn't kill us.. Just signing Weathers alone didn't kill us, it was the combination of blowing 35 million on mediocre vets with long term commitments.

remdog
03-22-2007, 09:56 PM
Geez, I leave Redread alone for a few hours and look what happens. :laugh:

Here's a list that Redlands put together around the first of the year. I thought it was pretty close to the mark. Redread was on his sabatical so he my not have seen it. I used this version on 1/3/07 but I believe it finally came in a few hundred K higher. And BTW, that's this years cost---it's not lifetime contract amounts.

"Here's what Wayne has added to the '08 roster since the deadline:

Rheal Cormier - Extended at $2.25 million
Kyle Loshe - Will tender at about $6 million
Juan Castro - Extended at $.925 million
Scott Hatteberg - Extended at $1.5 million
Javier Valentin - Extended at $1.25 million
Bubba Crosby - Signed for $.400 million
Chad Moeller - Signed for $.750 million (also, pay $3 million for LaRue to go away)
Alex Gonzalez - Signed for $3.5 million
Josh Hamilton - Will sign for about $.400 million
Jared Burton - Will sign for about $.400 million
David Weathers - Signed for $2.5 million
Mike Stanton - Signed for $2 million
Jeff Conine - Signed for $2 million"


Plus, the $3M sent to KC brings the money spent to about $27M spent for '07."

Rem

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 09:58 PM
Ok, let's follow this out to it's logical conclusion.

Who plays SS?
What other arms fill out the spots in the bullpen?
Who platoons with Hatte at 1B?

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of Olmedo, Salmon, Belisle. I know, "they couldn't do any worse" Well, actually, yes they could worse, a lot worse. But let's use your decision making criteron for whether to trade for a player. Will anybody say "Thank the lord Olmedo was here and led us to a WS". "That Brad Salmon really made the difference in the bullpen". Doubt it.

No one would say that...but they wouldn't have needed to drop millions on Olmedo and Salmon.

Who plays SS? Who cares? Odds are they aren't going anywhere so they don't need to break the bank for someone. Put Jerry Gil there.

Arms filling out the bullpen? Are you kidding? Everyone is crying that they have to deal Cormier b/c they have no room.

Who platoons with Hatte? How about Eduardo Perez? .843 OPS vs LHPs over the last three years. Conine? .771 OPS. And he's 3 years older than Perez. Makes no sense. Perez gets a minor league contract, Conine gets $2 million. May as well have flushed $2 mil down the toilet.

remdog
03-22-2007, 10:00 PM
By Redread:

"When you look at the big picture of what Wayne has done, it's obvious that he thinks this team is a contender. His moves were designed to win this year (old declining guys for the most part). That's foolish."

Yeahhh.....that went well last year too. Difference is he gave up on the young guys and now is trying the old guys. :devil:

Rem

Ltlabner
03-22-2007, 10:07 PM
Who plays SS? Who cares? .

On the one hand you want a top flight competitor who will win 95+ games, and lead us to the world series promised land. Anything else is a sign that "they don't think they can't win", "they've thrown in the towel for this season", and "they just want to be like Allen/Linder".

On the other hand you are willing to put never was's and not-gonna-bes in critical positions to surround these mystical key players that Wayne shoulda just picked off the "low cost, tallented player" tree.

I give up. You think Wayne's a dolt and woln't be satisfied until we win the world series. You are entitled to your opinion, but frankly, sometimes I wonder if even that would quell the mob.

reds44
03-22-2007, 10:09 PM
You can't say you can't win a Championship with Seabass as your SS, he's won won. In fact, I believe he hit a walk off home run in that series.

Doc. Scott
03-22-2007, 10:15 PM
I generally find that the best argument that's made for Lohse (outside of the erroneous "he has good stuff" argument) is that he's young.

I'm generally unmoved by the strength of that argument.


On top of questions about Lohse's effectiveness, I'll paste my little "discovery" from the game thread earlier today:

--
He (Lohse) is at least entering the typical peak period age-wise (28).

The thing is that he's worked so many innings as a youngster, throwing 171, 165, 167, 175, 181, 201, 194, and 179 innings at ages 19 through 26. That is a heck of a lot. I wonder if the Ryan Dempster (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/D/Ryan-Dempster.shtml) career path isn't in his future, actually.
---

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 10:15 PM
On the one hand you want a top flight competitor who will win 95+ games, and lead us to the world series promised land. Anything else is a sign that "they don't think they can't win", "they've thrown in the towel for this season", and "they just want to be like Allen/Linder".

On the other hand you are willing to put never was's and not-gonna-bes in critical positions to surround these mystical key players that Wayne shoulda just picked off the "low cost, tallented player" tree.

I give up. You think Wayne's a dolt and woln't be satisfied until we win the world series. You are entitled to your opinion, but frankly, sometimes I wonder if even that would quell the mob.

No...I want him to build a winner. Unless they come up with a ton of money to sign big name FAs over the next 3 years, this team will not win much in that time period. That is my opinion. And, IMO, if that is true, then spending $14 million on a stopgap SS is ludicrous. That's a smart signing when you have a loaded rotation and lineup and want someone who won't hurt you too bad at that position. Not when you have questions as to where your offense is going to come from and who your #3 starter will be. It's an idiotic signing.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 10:17 PM
You can't say you can't win a Championship with Seabass as your SS, he's won won. In fact, I believe he hit a walk off home run in that series.

Very true...he hit .161/.175/.274 during the 2003 playoffs. Wonderful output there.

reds44
03-22-2007, 10:20 PM
Very true...he hit .161/.175/.274 during the 2003 playoffs. Wonderful output there.
You think anybody remembers that? No, he hit a walkoff homer in the world series. That's all anybody will remember.

The Marlins won that because of pitching and defense. He was a big part of that.

Doc. Scott
03-22-2007, 10:26 PM
No...I want him to build a winner. Unless they come up with a ton of money to sign big name FAs over the next 3 years, this team will not win much in that time period. That is my opinion. And, IMO, if that is true, then spending $14 million on a stopgap SS is ludicrous. That's a smart signing when you have a loaded rotation and lineup and want someone who won't hurt you too bad at that position. Not when you have questions as to where your offense is going to come from and who your #3 starter will be. It's an idiotic signing.

I don't consider Gonzalez a "stopgap". Hatteberg, Conine, and Cormier are stopgaps. Gonzo just isn't the centerpiece of a winning team (those guys tend to cost a bit more than $14 million over three years these days). He's a complementary piece of the puzzle. As long as he bats low in the lineup, I'm at peace with it. If the Reds lose 90 games, I doubt the first finger pointed will be at Alex.

As usual, you're overstating things. Just like when you said earlier that if Chris Denorfia starts the season in Louisville, it means that the Reds' management has given up and punted 2007.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1270241&postcount=20


And that's why you have to believe that management has no hopes for this season.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 10:43 PM
You think anybody remembers that? No, he hit a walkoff homer in the world series. That's all anybody will remember.

The Marlins won that because of pitching and defense. He was a big part of that.

You are reaching here...

redsmetz
03-22-2007, 10:50 PM
But there was no need to sign Stanton. That's a classic example.

Shackleford would be just as good. Cormier was already in tow as the veteran lefty.

There was no real need to get Conine. No real need to resign Castro. Both of those bench slots could've been filled with low cost waiver wire filler and been just as effective (perhaps more).

Add that to Lohse's salary (or dump Milton) and you've got the money for your ace.. Stanton 2.5 Castro 1.1 Conine 2 Lohse 4.2 = 9.8 million. Of course you'd need to subtract 3 minimum salaries as well.

And there's more fat that could've been cut, even if you want to keep Gonzo.

Frankly, if the Reds had done everything you propose, they clearly would have been giving up completely on 2007.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't consider Gonzalez a "stopgap". Hatteberg, Conine, and Cormier are stopgaps. Gonzo just isn't the centerpiece of a winning team (those guys tend to cost a bit more than $14 million over three years these days). He's a complementary piece of the puzzle. As long as he bats low in the lineup, I'm at peace with it. If the Reds lose 90 games, I doubt the first finger pointed will be at Alex.

As usual, you're overstating things. Just like when you said earlier that if Chris Denorfia starts the season in Louisville, it means that the Reds' management has given up and punted 2007.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1270241&postcount=20

Actually I said that if Hopper and Crosby make the team over Deno, that means they are punting. The previous post said:


Because of his options remaining, Denorfia's only making the team if both Hopper and Crosby are hurt on April 1.

Put my quote into context and it means something totally different.

But to your other point, Cormier is a stopgap? What is he stopping? He's probably the third best LHP in the bullpen. That's a lot of lefties in the bullpen. He is overkill.

What is Conine a stopgap for? A $2 million dollar right handed part of a platoon? Isn't that a waste of money?

Hatteberg was a stopgap. Now he's a 2 year starter.

Those 3 "stopgaps" make up, what, like 8 or 9% of the team's payroll? About $5 or 6 million? That's wasted money. Votto/Eduardo Perez and Shackelford would have cost significantly less and probably gotten the same, if not better, results.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 10:55 PM
Frankly, if the Reds had done everything you propose, they clearly would have been giving up completely on 2007.

But instead they wasted money in an attempt to give up on 2007 in a not so clear manner?

mth123
03-22-2007, 11:00 PM
I generally find that the best argument that's made for Lohse (outside of the erroneous "he has good stuff" argument) is that he's young.

I'm generally unmoved by the strength of that argument.

The youth argument is no good either. He's a free agent after this year. If he has a good year (for him) he becomes Gil Meche. If he doesn't he becomes Eric Milton. Either way he won't likely help the Reds beyond 2007. The best play with Lohse would have been to trade him before arbitration season rolled around (I think it could have been done in this pitching market). If that failed he should have been non-tendered and the money re-invested. Lohse is not an answer for buiding this team no matter what he does. He won't be here when this team is ready to contend and as a result his age doesn't really matter. Now the best hope is a deadline deal for a prospect this year. BTW I also think the good stuff argument is erroneous.

We've had many a threads about a DFA of Milton because he's terrible and a waste of innings. The same is true of Lohse given the situation except instead of it being an inheited problem, it was a decision to waste over $4 Million. Lohse is not a young guy being developed for 2009. He's a hired gun that isn't really needed because he really isn't any better than the guys that were already here.

jojo
03-22-2007, 11:15 PM
Ok, if Gonzo has a career 292 OBP (career best 319), how in the world can they project him to have a 339 OBP? Isn't it generally true that most guys don't have a sudden increase in OBP at that age.

No offense to the projection systems, but that's an example of why I am a bit cynical of them.

Also, if his defense is worth +10 runs, how much is his offense worth? I'm guessing it's negative, but if you could show me the numbers, I'd appreciate it.

Pecota projects his VORP's to be: '07: 12.3; '08: 6.7; '09: 7.8;

So if he's a +10 run glove and a +12 run bat, he's basically a 2 win player in '07. Like I said though, Pecota is more down on him. If he actually did something close to the average of all five projection systems, he'd probably be a bonified all-star (for $3.5M). Thats alot of ifs though...

Doc. Scott
03-22-2007, 11:21 PM
Actually I said that if Hopper and Crosby make the team over Deno, that means they are punting. The previous post said:

Put my quote into context and it means something totally different.

Uh... not really. You're talking about the season's hopes resting on whether or not the Reds take one 200 PA bench player over another. Namely, Chris Denorfia. Still ridiculous. The Opening Day roster is a largely symbolic entity. If Denorfia does his thing in AAA, he'll get another shot if and when Bubba Crosby, as an example, hits .187. If Crosby does so well that we don't see Denorfia very much, then oh, well. The Reds come out for the better either way, right? Right. That's the important thing.


But to your other point, Cormier is a stopgap? What is he stopping? He's probably the third best LHP in the bullpen. That's a lot of lefties in the bullpen. He is overkill.

What is Conine a stopgap for? A $2 million dollar right handed part of a platoon? Isn't that a waste of money?

Hatteberg was a stopgap. Now he's a 2 year starter.

Those 3 "stopgaps" make up, what, like 8 or 9% of the team's payroll? About $5 or 6 million? That's wasted money. Votto/Eduardo Perez and Shackelford would have cost significantly less and probably gotten the same, if not better, results.

Stopgaps are veteran players brought in for short periods of time (one year, maybe a second if and only if they play well) to fill space until younger players are acquired or come up from the minors.

I'm not trying to defend the acquisition of specific players themselves, just disagreeing with the application of the term "stopgap" to Alex Gonzalez. He was given a three-year contract because Wayne Krivsky wanted him to be a lineup cog for several years.

Something we learned from the Jim Bowden years: you've got to have multiple options for each role on the team, no matter how ready a young player seems. (The minefield is when the manager ends up falling in love with the veterans that Know How to Play the Game and they continue to get starts even as they produce at a mediocre level.)

I'm not comfortable with Joey Votto starting at first base until he spends half a season at AAA. And I would also take exception with the opinion that Brian Shackleford would be a lock to do as well as Rheal Cormier.

remdog
03-22-2007, 11:22 PM
Despite my unhappiness over some of Krivsky's moves I still have hope that the Reds will win the division this year. It's spring so I'm optomistic. They've got new (ugly) unis. They have the 'feel-good' drug story of the year who, somewhere down the road, might actually be able to hit. Bronson Arroyo likes his new town (and his new contract). And, THEY PLAY IN THE MOST GOD-AWFUL DIVISION IN BASEBALL!!!

Now boys and girls, the last statement may not look like much but, after all, sometimes that's all you need!

Sometimes it's about an opportunity that's in front of you and deciding to go for it. I believe the Reds are, in fact, presented with that opportunity. Personally, in that situation I want a guy that's balls to the walls and going for it from day one. For me, that means going out and getting a solid #3 starter and taking it to the house from there. That's as close as you'll get to a lock in this division and you can fill in the Conines, the Cormiers, the Livingstons, the Crosbys, et al better and cheaper from your own system as well as good spending.

I will be rooting for the Reds from opening day until they finally turn out the lights. I hope that I get to see another championship as early as this year. If I do, I'll tip my hat to Wayne and say, "Congratulations! You did it! Great job!"
























After having said that, I'll mutter under my breath, "of course, if you'da just done it my way it would have been a lot easier!: :laugh:

Rem

mth123
03-22-2007, 11:24 PM
But there was no need to sign Stanton. That's a classic example.

Shackleford would be just as good. Cormier was already in tow as the veteran lefty.

There was no real need to get Conine. No real need to resign Castro. Both of those bench slots could've been filled with low cost waiver wire filler and been just as effective (perhaps more).

Add that to Lohse's salary (or dump Milton) and you've got the money for your ace.. Stanton 2.5 Castro 1.1 Conine 2 Lohse 4.2 = 9.8 million. Of course you'd need to subtract 3 minimum salaries as well.

And there's more fat that could've been cut, even if you want to keep Gonzo.


I agree. While the Reds were handing out those $2 and $3 Million deals this year, many of us were bemoaning the clutter being added to the roster at such a cost. Now the roster needs to be cut and there is no room for the guys many called for to fill those roles like Burton, Coutlangus, and Salmon. Not to mention Livingston, Shack, and RedSupport's Victor Santos (who I'm not real high on, but prefer at his cost to these other guys at theirs).

And Josh Phelps is going to be the major league minimum, non-roster invitee who wins the RH 1B job for no less than the New York Yankees. Many wanted him as well, yet he (and others who would have provided decent punch like Jayson Werth and Craig Wilson) were passed over for the conscious decision to add Jeff Conine.

RedRead, I agree with your contentions pretty well, except I really don't like Saarloos that much. He has a better chance to help than Milton or Lohse, but that is faint praise. The Reds would have had no problem fielding a team for 2007 that is every bit as competitive as this group by filling these spots with whichever young players and NRIs that stepped-up. And it would be a team that is actually building for the future.

As FCB said, the Harang and Arroyo deals kept this off-season from being a disaster. The Burton and Hamilton moves may pay-off big time, but that doesn't make these other moves any better.

edabbs44
03-22-2007, 11:32 PM
Uh... not really. You're talking about the season's hopes resting on whether or not the Reds take one 200 PA bench player over another. Namely, Chris Denorfia. Still ridiculous.

No...I said that management has no hope if they would rather keep Crosby or Hopper on the ML team b/c Denorfia has options. What kind of mindset is that? I would understand if Crosby had anything to offer. But he doesn't. What's the point of having him on the roster?



Stopgaps are veteran players brought in for short periods of time (one year, maybe a second if and only if they play well) to fill space until younger players are acquired or come up from the minors.

I'm not trying to defend the acquisition of specific players themselves, just disagreeing with the application of the term "stopgap" to Alex Gonzalez. He was given a three-year contract because Wayne Krivsky wanted him to be a lineup cog for several years.

Something we learned from the Jim Bowden years: you've got to have multiple options for each role on the team, no matter how ready a young player seems. (The minefield is when the manager ends up falling in love with the veterans that Know How to Play the Game and they continue to get starts even as they produce at a mediocre level.)

I'm not comfortable with Joey Votto starting at first base until he spends half a season at AAA. And I would also take exception with the opinion that Brian Shackleford would be a lock to do as well as Rheal Cormier.

I guess the underlined part of your quote is where the misunderstanding is. IMO, if Wayne wants him to be a lineup cog for three years then I must be missing something. We'll see how it plays out.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 12:56 AM
The youth argument is no good either. He's a free agent after this year. If he has a good year (for him) he becomes Gil Meche. If he doesn't he becomes Eric Milton. Either way he won't likely help the Reds beyond 2007. The best play with Lohse would have been to trade him before arbitration season rolled around (I think it could have been done in this pitching market). If that failed he should have been non-tendered and the money re-invested. Lohse is not an answer for buiding this team no matter what he does. He won't be here when this team is ready to contend and as a result his age doesn't really matter. Now the best hope is a deadline deal for a prospect this year. BTW I also think the good stuff argument is erroneous.

We've had many a threads about a DFA of Milton because he's terrible and a waste of innings. The same is true of Lohse given the situation except instead of it being an inheited problem, it was a decision to waste over $4 Million. Lohse is not a young guy being developed for 2009. He's a hired gun that isn't really needed because he really isn't any better than the guys that were already here.

If we go into the season with 3 of Milton, Saarlos, Belisle, Ramirez et all in the rotation then we really don't have much of a chance. There really is no potential for anyone to step up and be an above average starter.

Lohse sure has his negatives, but he does have the chance to be a solid pitcher for this season, even if it is only a one year thing. We simply were not going to find a better pitcher on the market and the same rate as Lohse. We would have had to pay more for someone that likely wont even outperform Lohse. Lohse at 4.2M is an exceptional bargain in this market, even if we had to give up Ward too.

Lohse and Milton are much different situations. Milton has shown since he came back from injury that he stinks. There is nothing in his performance that indicates that there is any hope of a turn around. There is of course nothing conclusive with lohse, but there is some evidence that leads to a chance for him to be an above average starter next season.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 01:03 AM
Geez, I leave Redread alone for a few hours and look what happens. :laugh:

Here's a list that Redlands put together around the first of the year. I thought it was pretty close to the mark. Redread was on his sabatical so he my not have seen it. I used this version on 1/3/07 but I believe it finally came in a few hundred K higher. And BTW, that's this years cost---it's not lifetime contract amounts.

"Here's what Wayne has added to the '08 roster since the deadline:

Rheal Cormier - Extended at $2.25 million
Kyle Loshe - Will tender at about $6 million
Juan Castro - Extended at $.925 million
Scott Hatteberg - Extended at $1.5 million
Javier Valentin - Extended at $1.25 million
Bubba Crosby - Signed for $.400 million
Chad Moeller - Signed for $.750 million (also, pay $3 million for LaRue to go away)
Alex Gonzalez - Signed for $3.5 million
Josh Hamilton - Will sign for about $.400 million
Jared Burton - Will sign for about $.400 million
David Weathers - Signed for $2.5 million
Mike Stanton - Signed for $2 million
Jeff Conine - Signed for $2 million"


Plus, the $3M sent to KC brings the money spent to about $27M spent for '07."

Rem


There's some pretty big errors in there as of now.

First off, LaRue's money was basically a sunk cost. I like LaRue way more than the average guy, but with Ross' emergence there was no reason to pay him 5M next season. I'm not particularly excited with the return as I feel LaRue is worth more than 2M per season, but counting 3M to the money spent in this offseason is incredibly flawed.The money was wasted anyways, so in reality, the Reds really gained 2M in offseason spending. A loss of 3M was not incurred towards the 2007 budget. That money was basically a waste either way as a back-up catcher. That's 5M too high on your list.

Secondly, Lohse was tendered at 4.2M. That's another 1.8 too high on the list.

So in total that's about 7M off from reality. The real list should be around 20M, not 27M. 20M is what has been actually added to the '07 payroll.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 01:12 AM
But there was no need to sign Stanton. That's a classic example.

Shackleford would be just as good. Cormier was already in tow as the veteran lefty.



Shackelford was putrid last season in the majors (albeit in a very small sample size). He's a LOOGY. He can only be used for about 1 hitter every game or two. If he's exposed to righties at all he gets shelled.

You can argue about Stanton's chances of being an above average starter all you want, but there is no evidence to support the conclusion that Shack could even come close to performing as well as Stanton this season. Stanton actually has the ability to both sides of the plate and is fairly durable.

Obviously, Stanton will be hurt quite a bit by going from an extreme pitcher's park to an extreme hitters park, but he is still easily better than Shack.

Plus having Cormier in tow as the veteran lefty really shouldn't prevent other guys from being signed. Cormier was a waste of money. IMO, that was the mistake, not Stanton.

mth123
03-23-2007, 01:31 AM
If we go into the season with 3 of Milton, Saarlos, Belisle, Ramirez et all in the rotation then we really don't have much of a chance. There really is no potential for anyone to step up and be an above average starter.

Lohse sure has his negatives, but he does have the chance to be a solid pitcher for this season, even if it is only a one year thing. We simply were not going to find a better pitcher on the market and the same rate as Lohse. We would have had to pay more for someone that likely wont even outperform Lohse. Lohse at 4.2M is an exceptional bargain in this market, even if we had to give up Ward too.

Lohse and Milton are much different situations. Milton has shown since he came back from injury that he stinks. There is nothing in his performance that indicates that there is any hope of a turn around. There is of course nothing conclusive with lohse, but there is some evidence that leads to a chance for him to be an above average starter next season.


The difference between us is that you clearly think that Lohse is better than that group. I actually would rank them as follows:

Belisle
Ramirez
Lohse
Saarloos
Milton

With Milton and Lohse both having no value beyond 2007. Since I think its about 2009 and not 2007, I wasn't intersted in adding to the wasted money on Milton with more wasted on Lohse. I think Lohse had the benefit of a 1st time around the league pop to his numbers while pitching for the Reds in 2006. I think we're more likely to see the guy that the Twins dropped from the rotation and sent to the Minors.

You could substitute Santos for Lohse and get the same thing. I prefer Saarloos (compared to Lohse and Milton, I don't really think highly of Saarloos) because if he does do well, the Reds control him and he'll still be relatively cheap.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 01:39 AM
Fair enough. We will have to see how the season goes.

remdog
03-23-2007, 02:19 AM
There's some pretty big errors in there as of now.

First off, LaRue's money was basically a sunk cost. I like LaRue way more than the average guy, but with Ross' emergence there was no reason to pay him 5M next season. I'm not particularly excited with the return as I feel LaRue is worth more than 2M per season, but counting 3M to the money spent in this offseason is incredibly flawed.The money was wasted anyways, so in reality, the Reds really gained 2M in offseason spending. A loss of 3M was not incurred towards the 2007 budget. That money was basically a waste either way as a back-up catcher. That's 5M too high on your list.

Secondly, Lohse was tendered at 4.2M. That's another 1.8 too high on the list.

So in total that's about 7M off from reality. The real list should be around 20M, not 27M. 20M is what has been actually added to the '07 payroll.


First of all, as I said, these number were from around the first of the year and Loshe's contract hadn't been tendered as yet. Personally, while I'm hopefull that Kyle will be somewhat pedestrian, even at $4.2M I think it's too much. Are you happy with that? If you are then another $1.8M wouldn't matter anyway---if you aren't then anything short of a stale bagel and tap water will likely set you off. :) Anyway, you saved $1.8M and saved almost enough for Jeff Conine---if you could lift him.

Secondly, as I also said, Redsland did the list so I'll let him defend whatever he may want about what was going through his head at the time but I think that he did a great job. That's just me (and most of the rest of the board ;) ).

On to the major point: Jason LaRue. You consider LaRue's salary a 'sunk cost'---and I don't necessarily disagree with that---but so is Ken Griffey Jr.'s, Bronson Arroyo's, heck, even Jerry Narron's. These are 'fixed' expenses of how you run your ballclub. It's one thing to have a sunk cost (like Aaron Harang) and another thing to trade him to another ball club, pay his salary and not have use of his services. If you do that you better be damn straight that you'll never need his services in the future.

Since we're in this situation I hope Ross turns out to be a terrific #1 catcher. But in four or the five overlapping seasons that Ross and LaRue have been in the bigs, LaRue has always been, by far, the superior player. Last year was the first time that Ross ever showed any flashes of ability at this level at all. Couple that with the fact that LaRue was coming off of an injury and and Ross declining as the season went on and I don't think that sending LaRue (and the money) to KC was exactly great for the Cincinnati Experiense in 2007. Heap on signing Moeller as the backup catcher and, frankly, I can't say (on this board) what I would like to say. (shrug)

So no, the list isn't clinically correct. But I do think that it gives one a good overview of the money that Krivskey has spent and what little he has gotten in return.

I mean really, if all you can quibel with on that list is a tender offer (estimate before the fact) and keeping LaRue on the team and Moeller off of it, is that so far out of touch? I certainly don't think so.

Rem

bucksfan2
03-23-2007, 09:48 AM
I find it difficult to understand why so many people think LaRue was a good player for the reds. He had a bad 2005 season and had an even worse 2006 season. Couple his sub mendoza line average with that fact that he was a porous backstop whose only value as a defender was his arm and I am happy to have him gone. Ross is younger and can outperform LaRue for cheaper.

Krivsky did not do much in terms of adding much this offseason but he also didn't add any BAD contracts. The top FA pitchers, besides Schmidt, would have been bad contracts for the reds. I dont understand Conine deal but the future is down in AAA right now. Adding Stanton and Weathers doesn't really bother me because many relief pitchers can be effective, when used properly, into their 40's. I am ok with the Gonzo deal because he is what Krivksy wants, a strong defensive SS. The other deals were minor deals that I dont think will hurt this club much.

I like what Krivsky did because he put a team together that has a chance to compete in this division with out breaking the bank. He resisted playing out big money and seems content to wait for some minor league help.

Johnny Footstool
03-23-2007, 10:10 AM
I'd say just having the chance to see what they can do, and having seemingly viable POTENTIAL good players is a step up from what we've had to choose from in years past.

We've heard nothing but griping and complaining about bringing in young, inexpensive tallent. Well, Krivsky delivered on those two, creative, player moves didn't he? I'd call that a sucess.

What happens in the real season remains to be seen, but that holds true for all the players, not just those two guys.

I'll celebrate when they actually succeed in the majors. Until then, no matter how shiny they look in Spring Training, they're still just lottery tickets.

remdog
03-23-2007, 11:03 AM
Just thought I'd transport a post over from virsion 2. I liked the writting and I agree with the conclusion.

By dfs:


The reds may well be involved in another deal or two before opening day, they need to do something to salvage the disaster that was this last off season.

None of the major problems facing the reds got addressed.

This year’s bullpen looks exactly like the bullpen Wayne inherited from DanO. Too many overpriced veterans with too many innings on their collective arms. Stanton, Weathers, Guardado, Hermanson…one can only assume that Mercker is going to be in the mix AGAIN. That’s a bunch of money spent on over the hill nothings. Again the reds gave away a minor league closer shipping David Shafer off to Oakland who will promptly turn him into a useful reliever while we get to watch Mike Stanton give up gopher balls.

Since July of last year, the reds offense has looked terrible. They needed a rightfielder with some serious sock and a firstbaseman that can hit. Instead Krivsky played spin the lefty on Hatteberg and is moving our centerfielder to right, replacing him in the lineup with a powerless fly catcher. Hatteberg outperformed all expectations last year and while it’s nice when one of your guys has a career year, expecting him to duplicate it as a 37 year old is just wishcasting. If you aren’t going to bring in a hitting first baseman, the obvious solution would have been to put Joey Votto into the mix, but he’s going to season in AAA for a year. The problem with moving Junior to right is that we all know he WILL go down again and when he does…..that means TWO punchless flycatchers in the outfield….That’s gonna do wonders for scoring runs, two punchless flycatchers batting in front of the pitcher….

Or playing time for Jeff Conine. You have got to be kidding me. You need a corner righty in order to soak up 300 at bats or so and you go dig up the remains of an allstar from the 1994 team? I’m just guessing that Kevin Mitchell wasn’t available. To make matters worse, they traded warm bodies for Jeff Conine. That’s unthinkable.

A contract extension for Juan Castro? Who thought that was a good use of the front office’s time. Signing Chad Moeller? Huh? That’s the definition of replaceable talent.

Where is the #3 starter? Ok Arroyo and Harang have worked out, but the reds are really planning on plowing another 30 starts into Eric Milton? Kyle Lohse? Everybody who think Lohse is a big game playoff pitcher raise your hands….yeah, that’s about what I thought too. But those two are expected to be consistent starters all year long! We are well beyond wishcasting and clearly playing fantasy baseball at this point.

So what was the big free agent signing? The reds needed a shortstop you say? That’s Pokey Reese out there folks. Why not….Why not move Phillips over, resign Aurillia and give him the second base job? Or heck, if Rich doesn’t want to come back and you’re into fossils, Ray Durham could have been had or any number of second basemen. Heck, why not give Ryan Freel a real full time job and put somebody in the outfield who can HIT! Instead of moving Phillips, they bring in a guy who struggles to get his OBP up to 300. You know, if you want that kind of player and you really think Juan Castro can’t play every day, why not just hand the shortstop job to Rey Olmedo? He’s cheaper and we don’t KNOW that he can’t hit any worse than that. Heck, if you’re going to settle for that why not just bring back Royce Clayton and his patented “who screwed that up” bobblehead look around the infield.


For the second year in a row, the reds dumped a fan favorite for magic beans. Last year they sent Sean Casey packing for the immortal Dave Williams who they sent packing for…well, for nothing. This year they PAID money to send Jason LaRue to the Royals. Not content to count on a career year by Hatteberg, they put all their catching eggs in the David Ross basket and sent the longest tenured red, their catcher of the last 6 years away for a player to be named later. That’s a classic example of selling low. Let’s hope the player to be named latter turns into more than Cody Ross.

The big addition to the reds family this offseason? Marty’s kid and Jeff Brantley on the broadcasting teams. That’s right, instead of signing players to play baseball, the reds spent their time finding playmates for George Grande. That’s what this franchise is all about anyway. Trade away fan favorites, let the talking heads trash Adam Dunn all winter long, the franchise is in good hands…..because Marty’s kid is signed to a long term contract. I wonder if Joe Morgan’s kid is interested?


Good one, dfs.

Rem

Falls City Beer
03-23-2007, 11:11 AM
I find it difficult to understand why so many people think LaRue was a good player for the reds. He had a bad 2005 season and had an even worse 2006 season. Couple his sub mendoza line average with that fact that he was a porous backstop whose only value as a defender was his arm and I am happy to have him gone. Ross is younger and can outperform LaRue for cheaper.

Krivsky did not do much in terms of adding much this offseason but he also didn't add any BAD contracts. The top FA pitchers, besides Schmidt, would have been bad contracts for the reds. I dont understand Conine deal but the future is down in AAA right now. Adding Stanton and Weathers doesn't really bother me because many relief pitchers can be effective, when used properly, into their 40's. I am ok with the Gonzo deal because he is what Krivksy wants, a strong defensive SS. The other deals were minor deals that I dont think will hurt this club much.

I like what Krivsky did because he put a team together that has a chance to compete in this division with out breaking the bank. He resisted playing out big money and seems content to wait for some minor league help.

Jason Larue had an outstanding 2005. You really need to look more closely at his numbers.

BRM
03-23-2007, 11:15 AM
Jason Larue had an outstanding 2005. You really need to look more closely at his numbers.

I'd take an .806 OPS from a catcher and be very happy with it. Not many put up better numbers in 2005 than Jason.

reds44
03-23-2007, 11:33 AM
I'd take an .806 OPS from a catcher and be very happy with it. Not many put up better numbers in 2005 than Jason.
Not many put up worse numbers then Jason did in 2006.

BRM
03-23-2007, 11:35 AM
Not many put up worse numbers then Jason did in 2006.

No one is arguing that point.

pedro
03-23-2007, 12:19 PM
I find it difficult to understand why so many people think LaRue was a good player for the reds. He had a bad 2005 season and had an even worse 2006 season. Couple his sub mendoza line average with that fact that he was a porous backstop whose only value as a defender was his arm and I am happy to have him gone. Ross is younger and can outperform LaRue for cheaper.



Not to pick nits, but Jason Larue had a very good 2005.

His OPS of .807 was his career best and a fine number for a catcher.

If the Reds get an .807 OPS out of their catchers in 2007 they will be very fortunate.

bucksfan2
03-23-2007, 01:04 PM
Not to pick nits, but Jason Larue had a very good 2005.

His OPS of .807 was his career best and a fine number for a catcher.

If the Reds get an .807 OPS out of their catchers in 2007 they will be very fortunate.

What exactly is OPS and what is the range for a good ops? I just have never gotten into stats. I looked back at his 2005 stats and they were ok I guess. There was nothing that jumped out to me. 2005 was a career year for LaRue and he was given a contract based on that career year. I think you take the middle ground of what LaRue did in 05 and 06 and thats what he is going to do this year. I just never thougth that LaRue was that good of a ball player. He was more of a fan favorite and that is what Obie kept him around.

westofyou
03-23-2007, 01:07 PM
What exactly is OPS and what is the range for a good ops?
It varies by position

Since 2000 here are the seasons for Reds catchers with at least 100 PA's

LaRue was good in 2004 and 2005, but last year was Kelly Stinnet country.



OPS YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE PA
1 David Ross 2006 .196 .932 .736 296
2 Javier Valentin 2005 .184 .883 .699 254
3 Jason LaRue 2005 .107 .806 .699 422
4 Kelly Stinnett 2001 .082 .793 .711 211
5 Jason LaRue 2004 .060 .765 .705 445
6 Corky Miller 2002 .043 .749 .706 129
7 Jason LaRue 2002 .023 .729 .706 397
8 Javier Valentin 2006 .018 .754 .736 201
9 Jason LaRue 2003 .008 .743 .735 437
10 Kelly Stinnett 2002 .003 .710 .706 108
11 Jason LaRue 2001 -.004 .707 .711 403
12 Javier Valentin 2004 -.031 .674 .705 222
13 Benito Santiago 2000 -.044 .719 .764 277
14 Jason LaRue 2000 -.046 .717 .764 107
15 Eddie Taubensee 2000 -.060 .704 .764 291
16 Jason LaRue 2006 -.073 .663 .736 230
17 Kelly Stinnett 2003 -.089 .646 .735 199

BRM
03-23-2007, 01:11 PM
Well, let's just look at counting stats for 2005 then. Only 8 catchers in all of MLB had more homers than Larue. Only 6 had more RBI. All of those guys had significantly more at-bats than Jason too.

Larue's numbers improved every year from 2001 to 2005 with semi regular playing time.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 02:22 PM
First of all, as I said, these number were from around the first of the year and Loshe's contract hadn't been tendered as yet. Personally, while I'm hopefull that Kyle will be somewhat pedestrian, even at $4.2M I think it's too much. Are you happy with that? If you are then another $1.8M wouldn't matter anyway---if you aren't then anything short of a stale bagel and tap water will likely set you off. :) Anyway, you saved $1.8M and saved almost enough for Jeff Conine---if you could lift him.

My only point was that the list was very midleading. I understand that when it was written things were different, but I think at this point, that the list isn't completely reliable. It was off by about 25%. Iwas just trying to give a better estimate to what was really spent upto the 2007 season.

And to answer your question, I am happy with the Lohse deal. I like him a lot more than the average poster does, and I expect him to be a bargain at 4.2M in this market.


Secondly, as I also said, Redsland did the list so I'll let him defend whatever he may want about what was going through his head at the time but I think that he did a great job. That's just me (and most of the rest of the board ;) ).

He did a fine job. I wasn't trying to insult anyone. It's jus a little dated.



On to the major point: Jason LaRue. You consider LaRue's salary a 'sunk cost'---and I don't necessarily disagree with that---but so is Ken Griffey Jr.'s, Bronson Arroyo's, heck, even Jerry Narron's. These are 'fixed' expenses of how you run your ballclub. It's one thing to have a sunk cost (like Aaron Harang) and another thing to trade him to another ball club, pay his salary and not have use of his services. If you do that you better be damn straight that you'll never need his services in the future.

You make good points. I'm not convicned that Ross will be any better than LaRue this season. There's a solid chance that LaRue performs better offensively, and when paired with IMO, better defense, he can be a better player this season.

I was dissapointed with the decision to get rid of LaRue. My preference was to shop Ross, as I figured he would likely be overvalued on what will probably be his career year. My hope was to get some decent pitching for him. For all I know Krivsky may have attempted to do that and didn't find a return to his liking.

But when the decision was made that Ross was the starting catcher (whether it was the right move or not is a different debate), I think dealing LaRue was the right decision. He was simply going to make too much money to sit on the bench this season, so if the playing time wouldn't be there, he may as well be traded. Valentin should be a capable back-up anyways since he does have some capabilities with the stick. I wasn't happy that only 2M was saved in the deal, but any bit helps, and with the Valentin, the Reds are probably better off with Conine then they are LaRue, since Conine is likely to a better hitter this season and gives the Reds a guy to platoon with Hatteberg. Conine is far from great, and there were better and cheaper options available, but he is a better fit than LaRue for this current team.


Heap on signing Moeller as the backup catcher and, frankly, I can't say (on this board) what I would like to say. (shrug)

Don't even get me started on Moeller. He sucks. I know it, you know it, and my dog knows it. As long as he is an insurance policy in AAA he should be decent depth to have, as long as the Reds aren't looking for him to be part of the 3 catcher rotation in the big leagues. You're likely not going to find better catchers to stash in AAA anyways due to the complete and utter lacking of decent catchers. Of course this assumes he plays in AAA.


I mean really, if all you can quibel with on that list is a tender offer (estimate before the fact) and keeping LaRue on the team and Moeller off of it, is that so far out of touch? I certainly don't think so.

Well they seem like fairly small mistakes, but I'm talking about 7M out of 27M. That's a huge chunk, not just quibbling. The list was not a great representation of what was actually spent this offseason IMO. When 25% of it is wrong, there is some fixing to do.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 02:25 PM
Not many put up worse numbers then Jason did in 2006.

I think a lot of that was due to bad luck. His BAPIP was way out of whack for him. Something like that isn't liekly to continue.

His HR, K, and BB rates were all on par with his usual numbers, so as long as that continues, he should be a more effective hitter next season even if he doesn't really play any better.

gonelong
03-23-2007, 02:36 PM
old post from 06-15-2006


Larue ought to be one of your favorites then.

My neighbor is a physicaly therapist. He is constantly amazed by Jason Larue. He dislikes Larue as a player quite a bit, but he always comments on how tough a SOB he must be.

He said the injury he played with last season (strained abdominal flexor?) is VERY painful.

As a side note, he also figures that Larue's knee isn't completely healed yet, he is having trouble rotating over the top of it, and that has contributed to his hitting woes this season.

GL

I'll ask him if he thinks he ought to be over this by now.

GL

Redsland
03-23-2007, 02:41 PM
There's some pretty big errors in there as of now.
There are no "errors" in my list.

I generated that list on 12/22, before Loshe's contract had been signed. Here's what I said at the time.

Here's what Wayne has added to the '07 roster since the deadline:

Rheal Cormier - Extended at $2.25 million
Kyle Loshe - Will tender at about $6 million
Juan Castro - Extended at $.925 million
Scott Hatteberg - Extended at $1.5 million
Javier Valentin - Extended at $1.25 million
Bubba Crosby - Signed for $.400 million
Chad Moeller - Signed for $.750 million (also, pay $3 million for LaRue to go away)
Alex Gonzalez - Signed for $3.5 million
Josh Hamilton - Will sign for about $.400 million
Jared Burton - Will sign for about $.400 million
David Weathers - Signed for $2.5 million
Mike Stanton - Signed for $2 million
Jeff Conine - Signed for $2 million
-------------------------------------

That's a long list of replacement-level dreck. That dreck will earn $23.875 million next year. Plus the $3 million that it cost to turn LaRue into Moeller.

$24 million that could have been spent on two $10 million pitchers with $4 million left for scrappy vets and AAAA players to fill the holes above.

$24 million that could have gone to the one impact pitcher of your choice, with millions to spare for, again, vets and AAAA players who would contribute as much to the team next year as those listed above.

This team could have added real talent. It could have pushed itself over the hump. Instead it convinced itself it couldn't afford an impact player, and then spent more than it would have by spreading the cash out over a dozen ill-conceived signings that won't help it compete.

When you say we can't afford Zito, you're right. And it's because the money it would have taken to out-bid his other suitors is tied up in Castro, Cormier, et.al.
Since then, Lohse has been signed for $4.2 million. Kirk Saarloos has been added at $1.2 million. That means that the dreck Krivsky has added to the roster since the trade deadline will make $23.275MM this year.

So replace the $24MM figures above with $23MM, if that makes you feel better. But those numbers are right, and they show exactly how Wayne has chosen to improve his '07 squad over the '06 version.

BRM
03-23-2007, 02:49 PM
So replace the $24MM figures above with $23MM, if that makes you feel better. But those numbers are right, and they show exactly how Wayne has chosen to improve his '07 squad over the '06 version.

I'm sure you are using the word "improve" loosely.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 02:53 PM
There are no "errors" in my list.
Since then, Lohse has been signed for $4.2 million. Kirk Saarloos has been added at $1.2 million. That means that the dreck Krivsky has added to the roster since the trade deadline will make $23.275MM this year.

So replace the $24MM figures above with $23MM, if that makes you feel better. But those numbers are right, and they show exactly how Wayne has chosen to improve his '07 squad over the '06 version.

I guess I'm just arguing semantics then. You have double counted LaRue's salary. He was going to be paid 5M this season either way. Krivsky did not add to the payroll when he sent LaRue away. The amount that Krivsky spent on the Reds 2007 payroll decreased by 2M with that trade, not increase it by 3M.

Based on what Remdog posted before, 27M was the number, it is about 6M off when including Saarloos. You need to count the losses as well to come up with a fair estimate on how much money has been actually spent. It should be about 21-22M, not 27M which is a considerable difference IMO.

I do agree with your points though. You are right that Krivsky did spend quite a bit of money on same bad players like Cormier, Weathers, Moeller, Saarloos, Castro who I agree could be replaced for very small amounts of money. That money could have definitely have been spent in better ways

Redsland
03-23-2007, 03:04 PM
My only point was that the list was very midleading.
The hell it is.

I overshot an estimate by $1.8MM. Wayne swooped in and backfilled $1.2MM of that.

I said Wayne's improvements to the '06 squad since the deadline would cost 24 million in '07. As of today, they'll cost $23.275MM. And if (if) you want to consider the $3MM that we spent turning LaRue into Moeller, then the figure goes up to $26.275. If you don't want to consider that $3MM, you don't have to, because I didn't include it.

Redsland
03-23-2007, 03:07 PM
You have double counted LaRue's salary.
I listed the people Wayne ADDED to the roster and what they'd be paid. Added. LaRue's salary isn't on that list anywere. Just a comment, attached to Chad Moeller, about what the Reds paid to KC to open that roster slot. If you want to consider that $3MM as part of the equation, I said, you can. If you don't, then you don't have to because, as you can see from my figures, I didn't either.

You are right that Krivsky did spend quite a bit of money on same bad players like Cormier, Weathers, Moeller, Saarloos, Castro who I agree could be replaced for very small amounts of money. That money could have definitely have been spent in better ways
I'm glad we can agree about that.

Truth be told, I don't mind the Gonzo signing, and I don't mind having a vet in the bullpen, whomever that might be. But when all that's separating you from playoff contention is a starting pitcher and an impact bat and you have $23 million dollars in your pocket, Wayne's list of acquisitions is mighty disheartening.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 03:08 PM
The hell it is.

I overshot an estimate by $1.8MM. Wayne swooped in and backfilled $1.2MM of that.

I said Wayne's improvements to the '06 squad since the deadline would cost 24 million in '07. As of today, they'll cost $23.275MM. And if (if) you want to consider the $3MM that we spent turning LaRue into Moeller, then the figure goes up to $26.275. If you don't want to consider that $3MM, you don't have to, because I didn't include it.

You didn't include it, but it was included on the original list that I was replying to. What you are saying is inconsistent with remdog's post, and that's where there is the big disagreement.

You didn't include, and it shouldn't be, so your latest version is more reflective of what is actually right and I wasn't disagreeing with that. It was the original post that wasn't really correct.

From the original post, we both agree that the 3M for LaRue should not be included, the 1.8M from Lohse should not be included, and 1.2M for Saarloos should be included. And my point was, that the list was not indicative of these changes, and that's why it was dated. Okay?

pedro
03-23-2007, 03:15 PM
There are no "errors" in my list.

I generated that list on 12/22, before Loshe's contract had been signed. Here's what I said at the time.

Since then, Lohse has been signed for $4.2 million. Kirk Saarloos has been added at $1.2 million. That means that the dreck Krivsky has added to the roster since the trade deadline will make $23.275MM this year.

So replace the $24MM figures above with $23MM, if that makes you feel better. But those numbers are right, and they show exactly how Wayne has chosen to improve his '07 squad over the '06 version.

Except for the fact that most of those players, while not being potential all-stars, are not "replacement level" either.

top6
03-23-2007, 03:21 PM
What exactly is OPS and what is the range for a good ops? I just have never gotten into stats. I looked back at his 2005 stats and they were ok I guess. There was nothing that jumped out to me. 2005 was a career year for LaRue and he was given a contract based on that career year. I think you take the middle ground of what LaRue did in 05 and 06 and thats what he is going to do this year. I just never thougth that LaRue was that good of a ball player. He was more of a fan favorite and that is what Obie kept him around.
Bucksfan, just saw that you asked what OPS was. Not sure if anyone answered you, but it is a player's on base percentage plus his slugging percentage.

The best OPSs in a given year are usually around 1.000.

If you are new to stats, but want to move past batting average, RBIs and home runs, OPS is a great place to start. It is a much better way to judge a hitter's value than just looking at the traditional stats (which tend to both significantly under and over value certain players).

This wikipedia article has a pretty good discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-base_plus_slugging.

Redsland
03-23-2007, 03:36 PM
Except for the fact that most of those players, while not being potential all-stars, are not "replacement level" either.
When I used that term back in December, I was admittedly speaking loosely, and thinking of it in terms of being an antonym of "impact player."

Since then, we've spent quite a lot of time talking about that term, which makes what was a throwaway term in my original post look out of place, I agree.

That said, I'll be shocked if more than three people on that list are considered to be anything more than "acceptably okay role players" by season's end. It was in that sense that I was using the word.

Nitpicker. :mooner: :beerme:

Ltlabner
03-23-2007, 03:48 PM
I'd take an .806 OPS from a catcher and be very happy with it. Not many put up better numbers in 2005 than Jason.

So if Ross puts up a .806 OPS this year will people still be happy with his performance, or will they be slamming him for "backsliding" and saying that Krivsky brought in more junk.

BRM
03-23-2007, 03:50 PM
So if Ross puts up a .806 OPS this year will people still be happy with his performance, or will they be slamming him for "backsliding" and saying that Krivsky brought in more junk.

My guess is people will say a little of both but I don't think he'll get slammed. An .800 OPS will mean he regressed but his performance would still be very good for a catcher.

Patrick Bateman
03-23-2007, 03:57 PM
So if Ross puts up a .806 OPS this year will people still be happy with his performance, or will they be slamming him for "backsliding" and saying that Krivsky brought in more junk.

People should be quite happy with that. That would make him a fine hitter for a catcher. It's a low .700 OPS that will ruffle some feathers.

pedro
03-23-2007, 04:31 PM
When I used that term back in December, I was admittedly speaking loosely, and thinking of it in terms of being an antonym of "impact player."

Since then, we've spent quite a lot of time talking about that term, which makes what was a throwaway term in my original post look out of place, I agree.

That said, I'll be shocked if more than three people on that list are considered to be anything more than "acceptably okay role players" by season's end. It was in that sense that I was using the word.

Nitpicker. :mooner: :beerme:


Notice I didn't challenge the "dreck" part. :)

pedro
03-23-2007, 04:33 PM
My guess is people will say a little of both but I don't think he'll get slammed. An .800 OPS will mean he regressed but his performance would still be very good for a catcher.


I think it depends on what his OBP is.

If he has an .800 that's made up of a .500 slg percentage and and .300 OBP it won't be pretty.

BRM
03-23-2007, 04:35 PM
I think it depends on what his OBP is.

If he has an .800 that's made up of a .500 slg percentage and and .300 OBP it won't be pretty.

Good point. He'd still get ripped a little for being an out machine with an OBP like that.

Falls City Beer
03-23-2007, 04:38 PM
So if Ross puts up a .806 OPS this year will people still be happy with his performance, or will they be slamming him for "backsliding" and saying that Krivsky brought in more junk.

Happy as heck.